Transcription, Translation, and Function of Lubricin, a Boundary Lubricant, at the Ocular Surface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Lubricin may be an important barrier to the development of corneal and conjunctival epitheliopathies that may occur in dry eye disease and contact lens wear. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that lubricin (ie, proteoglycan 4 [PRG4 ]), a boundary lubricant, is produced by ocular surface epithelia and acts to protect the cornea and conjunctiva against significant shear forces generated during an eyelid blink and that lubricin deficiency increases shear stress on the ocular surface and promotes corneal damage. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Human, porcine, and mouse tissues and cells were processed for molecular biological, immunohistochemical, and tribological studies, and wild-type and PRG4 knockout mice were evaluated for corneal damage. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrate that lubricin is transcribed and translated by corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells. Lubricin messenger RNA is also present in lacrimal and meibomian glands, as well as in a number of other tissues. Absence of lubricin in PRG4 knockout mice is associated with a significant increase in corneal fluorescein staining. Our studies also show that lubricin functions as an effective friction-lowering boundary lubricant at the human cornea-eyelid interface. This effect is specific and cannot be duplicated by the use of hyaluronate or bovine serum albumin solutions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our results show that lubricin is transcribed, translated, and expressed by ocular surface epithelia. Moreover, our findings demonstrate that lubricin presence significantly reduces friction between the cornea and conjunctiva and that lubricin deficiency may play a role in promoting corneal damage.
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".