MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105848892 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.103.021170

Tsga10 Encodes a 65-Kilodalton Protein That Is Processed to the 27-Kilodalton Fibrous Sheath Protein1

2004· article· en· W2105848892 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Hossein Modarressi, Babak Behnam, Min Cheng, Kay Elizabeth Taylor, Jonathan Wolfe, Frans A. van der Hoorn

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyRadixinMoesinSpermatidMolecular biologyEzrinFusion proteinCell biologyMyosinGeneExonMessenger RNASpermCytoskeletonGeneticsRecombinant DNACell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We had previously reported the isolation of the testis-specific human gene Tsga10, which is not expressed in testes from two infertile patients. To study its role and function, we cloned the mouse homologue Mtsga10. Mtsga10 localizes to mouse chromosome 1, band B. This region is syntenic with human chromosome 2q11.2, where Tsga10 is located. We demonstrate that Mtsga10 mRNA is expressed in testis, but not in other adult tissues, and in several human fetal tissues and primary tumors. We uncovered that different species use different first exons and, consequently, different promoters. Using several antibodies, we discovered that, in mouse testis, Mtsga10 encodes a 65-kDa spermatid protein that appears to be processed to a 27-kDa protein of the fibrous sheath, a major sperm tail structure, in mature spermatozoa. Mtsga10 protein contains a putative myosin/Ezrin/radixin/moesin (ERM) domain. Transfection of fibroblasts with GFP-Mtsga10 fusion protein results in formation of short, thick filaments and deletion of the myosin/ERM domain abolished filament formation. Our results suggest the possibility that Tsga10 plays a role in the sperm tail fibrous sheath.

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)0.000
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 score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations69
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207