Laminin receptor 1 is differentially expressed in thoracic and limb wounds in the horse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healing of wounds located on the distal limbs of horses is often complicated by retarded epithelialization and the development of exuberant granulation tissue (proud flesh). Treatments that definitively resolve this pathological process are still unavailable. Molecular studies of the repair mechanism might contribute to the development of new therapeutic strategies. The study presented herein aimed to clone the full length cDNA and to study the spatio-temporal expression profile of mRNA and protein for LAMR1, previously attributed a role in wound epithelialization, during the repair of body and limb wounds in the horse. Cloning was achieved by screening a cDNA library previously derived from 7-day wound biopsies. Expression was studied in unwounded skin and in samples from 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 6-week-old wounds of the body and limb. Temporal gene expression was determined by real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) while protein expression was mapped immunohistochemically. Full-length cDNA for equine LAMR1 was shown to be highly similar to that of other species. The mRNA expression of LAMR1 was significantly up-regulated only in thoracic wounds, 4 and 6 weeks following wounding (upon epithelialization). Cutaneous wounding induced protein expression at both locations. Our data suggest that up-regulation of LAMR1 protein might favour epithelialization during wound healing. However, its interaction with ligands other than laminin complicates data interpretation. Future studies should quantitatively verify the temporal expression of this protein in order to provide the basis for targeted therapies that might enhance epithelialization.
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".