Characterization of Apin, a secreted protein highly expressed in tooth‐associated epithelia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously reported expression of a protein by enamel organ (EO) cells in rat incisors, originally isolated from the amyloid of Pindborg odontogenic tumors called Apin. The aim of the present study was to further characterize the Apin gene and its protein in various species, assess tissue specificity, and clarify its localization within the EO. Northern blotting and RT-PCR revealed that expression of Apin was highest in the EO and gingiva, moderate in nasal and salivary glands, and lowest in the epididymis. The protein sequences deduced from the cloned cDNA for rat, mouse, pig, and human were aligned together with those obtained from four other mammal genomes. Apin is highly conserved in mammals but is absent in fish, birds, and amphibians. Comparative SDS-PAGE analyses of the protein obtained from bacteria, transfected cells, and extracted from EOs all indicated that Apin is post-translationally modified, a finding consistent with the presence of predicted sites for phosphorylation and O-linked glycosylation. In rodent incisors, Apin was detected only in the ameloblast layer of the EO, starting at post-secretory transition and extending throughout the maturation stage. Intense labeling was visible over the Golgi region as well as on the apices of ameloblasts abutting the enamel matrix. Apin was also immunodetected in epithelial cells of the gingiva which bind it to the tooth surface (junctional epithelium). The presence of Apin at cell-tooth interfaces suggests involvement in adhesive mechanisms active at these sites, but its presence among other epithelial tissues indicates Apin likely possesses broader physiological roles.
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".