Retinoid antagonists inhibit normal patterning during limb regeneration in the axolotl, <i>Ambystoma mexicanum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retinoic acid (RA) has been detected in the regenerating limb of the axolotl, and exogenous RA can proximalize, posteriorize, and ventralize blastemal cells. Thus, RA may be an endogenous regulatory factor during limb regeneration. We have investigated whether endogenous retinoids are essential for patterning during axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) limb regeneration by using retinoid antagonists that bind to specific RAR (retinoic acid receptor) or RXR (retinoid X receptor) retinoid receptor subtypes. Retinoid antagonists (Ro41-5253, Ro61-8431, LE135, and LE540) were administered to regenerating limbs using implanted silastin blocks loaded with each antagonist. The skeletal pattern of regenerated limbs treated with Ro41-5253 or Ro61-8431 differed only slightly from control limbs. Treatment with LE135 inhibited limb regeneration, while treatment with LE540 allowed relatively normal limb regeneration. When LE135 and LE540 were implanted together, regeneration was not completely inhibited and a hand-like process regenerated. These results demonstrate that interfering with retinoid receptors can modify pattern in the regenerating limb indicating that endogenous retinoids are important during patterning of the regenerating limb.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".