Canine Relaxin-Like Factor: Unique Molecular Structure and Differential Expression Within Reproductive Tissues of the Dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employing postpubertal testicular tissue, we determined the cDNA coding sequence of a truncated canine relaxin-like factor (RLF) consisting of a signal peptide of 28 amino acids (aa), a B-domain of 23 aa, a truncated C-domain of 34 aa, and an A domain of 26 aa, respectively. Within the B-domain of canine RLF, the putative relaxin receptor binding motif contained a single substitution with the C-terminal arginine replaced by a serine residue, and the putative RLF receptor binding motif was truncated. Leydig cells specifically expressed RLF in the normal postpubertal and cryptochid testis as well as in testicular Leydig cell adenoma. The epididymis was an additional source of RLF in the dog. In the female reproductive tract, expression of immunoreactive RLF and relaxin were compared. Within the ovary, RLF, but not relaxin, was detected in follicular theca interna and granulosa cells and the corpus luteum. In the nonpregnant uterus, luminal and glandular epithelium coexpressed RLF and relaxin. Uteroplacental tissue at early stages of gestation revealed RLF expression in the proliferative fetal villous cytotrophoblast and in maternal uterine cells. In the mature canine placenta, the trophoblast surrounding the maternal blood vessels and the hemophagous cytotrophoblast of the paraplacental zone expressed RLF. Canine relaxin was absent in the paraplacental areas. Western analysis of placental tissue extracts revealed the presence of specific immunoreactive bands likely resembling unprocessed and enzymatically cleaved RLF. Differential expression of RLF and relaxin appears to reflect distinct autocrine and paracrine functions of RLF in canine reproductive tissues.
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".