Spatiotemporal expression pattern of progranulin in embryo implantation and placenta formation suggests a role in cell proliferation, remodeling, and angiogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embryo implantation in the mink is preceded by a variable but obligate period of delay in development. Under the influence of progesterone and unknown luteal factors, the mink embryo implants 11-13 days following its exit from diapause. Recent work suggests that progranulin, a growth factor and secreted glycoprotein, is involved in trophoblast proliferation, placental development and endometrial differentiation in the mouse. Using the mink model of delayed implantation and endotheliochorial placentation, we examined the spatiotemporal distribution of progranulin in trophoblast and endometrium during pre- and early post-implantation gestation in vivo. A partial sequence of the mink progranulin gene was cloned and sequenced. Comparative sequence analysis revealed that exons 1 and 2 of mink progranulin share 86.6, 82.4, and 94.9% of nucleic acid sequence identity with the human, mouse, and dog sequences respectively, and indicated that the invariable residues of the cysteine-rich motifs of progranulin are well conserved in the mink sequence. By in situ hybridization, we show that mink progranulin transcript is present in the cytotrophoblast and in epithelial and stromal endometrial cells at the site of implantation and during early placental formation. Immunohistochemistry revealed the progranulin protein to be strongly expressed in endometrial luminal and glandular epithelium around the time of implantation. In the incipient labyrinth, progranulin expression is localized to cytotrophoblasts and fetal capillaries, as well as to the hypertrophied maternal endothelial cells. This study demonstrates that high levels of progranulin expression correspond to active cell proliferation, remodeling, and angiogenesis occurring during the establishment of the placenta in the mink.
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".