Spatial and Temporal Localization of WNT Signaling Proteins in a Mouse Model of Distraction Osteogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the surgical procedure of distraction osteogenesis (DO) is very successful in the treatment of orthopedic conditions, its major limitation of slow bone formation in the distracted gap has prompted numerous attempts to understand and accelerate this slow bone formation. Interestingly, WNT/FZD signaling has been identified as a critical pathway in mediating bone formation and regeneration but has not yet been studied in the context of DO. The objective of this study was to determine the spatial and temporal localization of endogenous WNT signaling proteins at various times of bone formation in a wild-type mouse model of DO. In this study, the DO protocol performed on mice consisted of three phases: latency (5 days), distraction (12 days), and consolidation (34 days). Our immunohistochemical findings of distracted bone specimens show an increased expression of WNT ligands (WNT4 and WNT10A), receptors (FZD1 and 2, LRP5 and 6), β-catenin, and pathway antagonizers (DKK1; CTBP1 and 2; sFRP1, 2, and 4) during the distraction phase, which were then down-regulated during consolidation. This is the first published report to show an activation of the WNT pathway in DO and could help identify WNT as a potential therapeutic target in accelerating bone regeneration during DO.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".