MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072092613 · doi:10.1083/jcb.200504131

Sgk3 links growth factor signaling to maintenance of progenitor cells in the hair follicle

2005· article· en· W2072092613 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Alonso, Hitoshi Okada, H. Amalia Pasolli, Andrew Wakeham, Annick Itie You-Ten, Tak W. Mak, Elaine Fuchs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsBiologyCell biologyHair follicleSignal transductionKinaseGrowth factorProtein kinase BEndocrinologyInternal medicineReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tyrosine kinase growth factor receptor signaling influences proliferation, survival, and apoptosis. Hair follicles undergo cycles of proliferation and apoptotic regression, offering an excellent paradigm to study how this transition is governed. Several factors are known to affect the hair cycle, but it remains a mystery whether Akt kinases that are downstream of growth factor signaling impact this equilibrium. We now show that an Akt relative, Sgk (serum and glucocorticoid responsive kinase) 3, plays a critical role in this process. Hair follicles of mice lacking Sgk3 fail to mature normally. Proliferation is reduced, apoptosis is increased, and follicles prematurely regress. Maintenance of the pool of transiently amplifying matrix cells is impaired. Intriguingly, loss of Sgk3 resembles the gain of function of epidermal growth factor signaling. Using cultured primary keratinocytes, we find that Sgk3 functions by negatively regulating phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase signaling. Our results reveal a novel and important function for Sgk3 in controlling life and death in the hair follicle.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations53
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207