MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085621217 · doi:10.1073/pnas.220302597

The classical progesterone receptor mediates <i>Xenopus</i> oocyte maturation through a nongenomic mechanism

2000· article· en· W2085621217 on OpenAlexaff
M. Bayaa, Ronald A. Booth, Yinglun Sheng, X. Johné Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOocyteXenopusCell biologyMechanism (biology)ChemistryProgesterone receptorBiologyGeneticsBiochemistryPhysicsEstrogen receptorEmbryoGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xenopus laevis oocytes are physiologically arrested at G(2) of meiosis I. Resumption of meiosis, or oocyte maturation, is triggered by progesterone. Progesterone-induced Xenopus oocyte maturation is mediated via an extranuclear receptor and is independent of gene transcription. The identity of this extranuclear oocyte progesterone receptor (PR), however, has remained a longstanding problem. We have isolated the amphibian homologue of human PR from a Xenopus oocyte cDNA library. The cloned Xenopus progesterone receptor (xPR) functioned in heterologous cells as a progesterone-regulated transcription activator. However, endogenous xPR was excluded from the oocyte nucleus and instead appeared to be a cytosolic protein not associated with any membrane structures. Injection of xPR mRNA into Xenopus oocytes accelerated the progesterone-induced oocyte maturation and reduced the required concentrations of progesterone. In enucleated oocytes, xPR accelerated the progesterone-induced mitogen-activated protein kinase activation. These data suggest that xPR is the long sought after Xenopus oocyte receptor responsible for progesterone-induced oocyte maturation.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations212
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207