MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042837372 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.509

Pannexin 3 is a novel target for Runx2, expressed by osteoblasts and mature growth plate chondrocytes

2011· article· en· W2042837372 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen R. Bond, Alice Lau, Silvia Peñuela, Arthur V. Sampaio, T. Michael Underhill, Dale W. Laird, Christian C. Naus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsPannexinRUNX2Intramembranous ossificationCell biologyBiologyOsteoblastTranscription factorChordateAnatomyGap junctionGeneVertebrateGeneticsIntracellular

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pannexins are a class of chordate channel proteins identified by their homology to insect gap junction proteins. The pannexin family consists of three members, Panx1, Panx2, and Panx3, and the role each of these proteins plays in cellular processes is still under investigation. Previous reports of Panx3 expression indicate enrichment in skeletal tissues, so we have further investigated this distribution by surveying the developing mouse embryo with immunofluorescence. High levels of Panx3 were detected in intramembranous craniofacial flat bones, as well as long bones of the appendicular and axial skeleton. This distribution is the result of expression in both osteoblasts and hypertrophic chondrocytes. Furthermore, the Panx3 promoter contains putative binding sites for transcription factors involved in bone formation, and we show that the sequence between bases -275 and -283 is responsive to Runx2 activation. Taken together, our data suggests that Panx3 may serve an important role in bone development, and is a novel target for Runx2-dependent signaling.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations110
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207