MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125326677 · doi:10.3382/ps.2007-00235

Expression Patterns of the Prolactin Receptor Gene in Chicken Lymphoid Tissues During Embryogenesis and Posthatch Period

2007· article· en· W2125326677 on OpenAlexaff
Zhiyang Kang, Grégoy Y. Bédécarrats, D. Zadworny

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProlactin receptorBiologyProlactinBursa of FabriciusEmbryogenesisIn situ hybridizationLymphatic systemInternal medicineImmune systemEndocrinologySpleenReceptorHatchingWhite pulpHormone receptorHormoneGene expressionGeneEmbryoCell biologyImmunologyGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prolactin (PRL) is a pituitary hormone with multiple homeostatic roles among vertebrates. Although it has mainly been studied in relation to its role during the initiation and maintenance of incubation behavior in avian species, it has also been shown to act on the immune system. In this study, levels of PRL receptor (PRLR) mRNA were quantified by real-time PCR, and tissue expression was localized by in situ hybridization in primary and secondary lymphoid organs. Prolactin receptor was shown to be expressed in the bursa follicles, thymus lobules, and splenic pulp at all stages of development examined. Levels of PRLR expression were consistently higher in the bursa of Fabricius when compared with other lymphoid organs, suggesting that PRL acts primarily on bursal development. Furthermore, levels of PRLR mRNA appeared to fluctuate during embryogenesis, with a significant increase observed at embryonic day 19 in the bursa, at 7 d of age in the thymus, and on hatching day in the spleen. Thus, PRL might play an important role during the development of the immune system in chickens.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207