Dominant-negative Retinoic Acid Receptors Elicit Epidermal Defects through a Non-canonical Pathway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has shown that a dominant-negative retinoic acid receptor alpha (dnRARalpha), expressed under the K14 promoter, causes severe epidermal defects. Similar defects are, however, not seen in RARalphagamma double null mutant mice, which lack the entire complement of RARs expressed in the epidermis. To investigate the mechanism of action of these dominant-negative receptors, dnRARalpha or a DNA binding-deficient variant, dnRARalpha(DBD), were targeted to the basal epidermis. Expression of either receptor type led to similar epidermal phenotypes suggesting that both RAR mutants acted through a common mechanism. The epidermal phenotype was reminiscent of defects seen in p63(-/-) mice. Consistent with this, reduced p63 expression was observed in transgenic offspring expressing either RAR mutant, suggesting that down-regulation of p63 might underlie the effects of these receptors on epidermal development. By contrast, expression of p63 in the epidermis of RARalphagamma(-/-) offspring was unaffected, indicating that RARs were not essential for p63 expression. These findings suggest that dnRARs may impact on epidermal development through one or more non-canonical pathways, which are independent of receptor-DNA interaction.
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) | 0.002 | 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".