MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043641211 · doi:10.1002/ar.20441

A re‐evaluation of gelsolin at ectoplasmic specializations in sertoli cells: The influence of serum in blocking buffers on staining patterns

2007· article· en· W2043641211 on OpenAlexaff
Julian A. Guttman, Kuljeet Vaid, A. Wayne Vogl

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatomical Record · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGelsolinStainingAntibodyMonoclonal antibodyImmunohistochemistryActinChemistryFrozen section procedureCell biologyIntracellularMolecular biologyBiologyPathologyImmunologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we test the hypothesis that gelsolin immunolocalized in actin filament-rich ectoplasmic specializations may be exogenous gelsolin present in normal serum used in blocking buffers, and that binds to the intercellular adhesion plaques during tissue processing. Fixed frozen sections of rat and rabbit testis were pre-treated with standard blocking buffers containing 5% normal goat serum (NGS) and then incubated with anti-gelsolin antibodies in the presence of 1% NGS. Other sections were treated in a similar fashion, but in buffers not containing NGS. Sections were then labeled with secondary antibody conjugated to a fluorochrome. Localized staining at ectoplasmic specializations occurred only in sections treated with NGS. The only positive staining in sections not treated with NGS was associated with seminiferous tubule walls and blood vessels in rabbit tissue. The antibodies reacted with a single band at the appropriate molecular weight for gelsolin on immunoblots of NGS, but did not react on immunoblots of testis or seminiferous epithelium. We conclude that gelsolin localized at ectoplasmic specializations using current commercially available antibodies is a result of non-specific binding to the fixed tissues of gelsolin present in blocking buffers.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatomical RecordSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207