OB‐cadherin cloning and expression in a model of wound repair in horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASON FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Horses suffer from a debilitating impediment in repairing wounds located on the lower limb that leads to the development of a fibroproliferative disorder (exuberant granulation tissue). This condition is a source of wastage since it often forces retirement from competition. Treatments that resolve or prevent this condition are still lacking, maybe due to deficient knowledge of the underlying molecular mechanisms. Fibroblast-to-myofibroblast conversion is an essential step allowing contraction during wound repair and is accompanied by an increase in OB-cadherin expression. OBJECTIVES: To clone equine cadherin-11 (CDH11) cDNA and to study its spatiotemporal expression profile during the repair of body and limb wounds, thereby contributing to a better understanding of the repair process. METHODS: Cloning was by a PCR technique. Expression was studied in intact skin and in 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6-week-old wounds of the body and limb. Temporal CDH11 gene expression was determined by RT-PCR while OB-cadherin protein expression was mapped immunohistochemically. RESULTS: Equine CDH11 is a highly conserved gene and protein. mRNA was not expressed in equine skin whereas the wound repair process was characterised by a significantly higher expression in the thorax than in limb samples. mRNA expression pattern was paralleled by protein data as confirmed by immunohistochemistry. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that deficient OB-cadherin expression in the first phases of wound repair contributes to the excessive proliferative response seen in horse limb wounds. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Future studies should verify the quantitative, temporal expression of this protein in order to provide the basis for targeted therapies that might prevent the development of EGT in horse wound repair.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".