MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120594729 · doi:10.1002/dvdy.1168

Enzymes active in the areas undergoing cartilage resorption during the development of the secondary ossification center in the tibiae of rats ages 0–21 days: I. Two groups of proteinases cleave the core protein of aggrecan

2001· article· en· W2120594729 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Dynamics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtease and Inhibitor Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada
FundersShriners Hospitals for Children
KeywordsAggrecanAggrecanaseCartilageEpiphysisResorptionAnatomyOssification centerBiologyCleavage (geology)Endochondral ossificationImmunostainingCell biologyChemistryPathologyImmunologyOsteoarthritisMedicineEndocrinologyImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The formation of a secondary ossification center in the cartilaginous epiphysis of long bones requires the excavation of canals and marrow space and, therefore, the resorption of cartilage. On the assumption that its resorption requires the lysis of the major cartilage component aggrecan, it was noted that the core protein may be cleaved in vitro by proteinases from two subfamilies: matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and aggrecanases. Such cleavage results in aggrecan being replaced by a fragment of itself referred to as a "G1-fragment." To find out if this cleavage occurs in the developing epiphysis of the rat tibia, the approach has been to localize the G1 fragments. For this purpose two neoepitope antisera were applied, one capable of recognizing the MMP-generated G1-fragment that bears the C-terminus ...FVDIPEN341 and the other capable of recognizing the aggrecanase-generated G1-fragment that carries the C-terminus ...NITEGE373. With the aid of these antisera, we report here that aggrecan cleavage is localized to newly developed sites of erosion. Thus, at 6 days of age, canals allowing the entry of capillaries are dug out from the surface of the epiphysis in a radial direction (stage I), whereas immunostaining indicative of aggrecan cleavage by MMPs appears at the blind end of each canal. The next day, the canal blind ends fuse to create a marrow space in the epiphysis (stage II), whereas immunostaining produced by MMPs occurs along the walls of this space. By 9 days, clusters of hypertrophic chondrocytes are scattered along the marrow space wall to initiate the formation of the secondary ossification center (stage III), where the resorption sites are unreactive to either antiserum. From the 9th to the 21st day, the center keeps on enlarging and, as the distal wall of the marrow space recedes, it is intensely immunostained with both antisera indicating that both MMPs and aggrecanases are involved in this resorption. We conclude, that both enzyme subfamilies contribute to the lysis of aggrecan. However, the results suggest that the respective subfamilies target different sites and even stages of development in the tissue, suggesting some diversity in the mode of aggrecan lysis during the excavation of a secondary ossification center.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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