Expression of fibroblast growth factor receptors during development and regression of the bovine corpus luteum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence that fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) are involved in the regulation of growth and regression of the corpus luteum (CL). However, the expression pattern of most FGF receptors (FGFRs) during CL lifespan is still unknown. The objective of the present study was to determine the pattern of expression of 'B' and 'C' splice variants of FGFRs in the bovine CL. Bovine CL were collected from an abattoir and classed as corpora hemorrhagica (Stage I), developing (Stage II), developed (Stage III) or regressed (Stage IV) CL. Expression of FGFR mRNA was measured by semiquantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and FGFR protein was localised by immunohistochemistry. Expression of mRNA encoding the 'B' and 'C' spliced forms of FGFR1 and FGFR2 was readily detectable in the bovine CL and was accompanied by protein localisation. FGFR1C and FGFR2C mRNA expression did not vary throughout CL lifespan, whereas FGFR1B was upregulated in the developed (Stage III) CL. FGFR3B, FGFR3C and FGFR4 expression was inconsistent in the bovine CL. The present data indicate that FGFR1 and FGFR2 splice variants are the main receptors for FGF action in the bovine CL.
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 | 0.001 | 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".