Immunodetection of Osteopontin at Sites of Resorption in the Pulp of Rat Molars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteopontin (OPN) has been proposed to act as a substrate for osteoclast adhesion during bone resorption. The aim of the present study was to examine the presence and distribution of OPN at sites of resorption in traumatized radicular pulp. The upper first molars of 6-week-old male Sprague-Dawley rats were luxated and then repositioned in the original sockets. The animals were sacrificed by intracardiac perfusion at 10 and 14 days after tooth reimplantation. The teeth were decalcified in EDTA and then processed for embedding in paraffin for histochemistry or LR White resin for immunocytochemistry. Odontoclasts were identified by their multinucleated morphology and expression of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP). Osteopontin was immunolocalized using postembedding colloidal gold labeling with a chicken egg yolk anti-rat OPN antibody. After reimplantation of the teeth, TRAP-positive cells were present along the pulp dentin wall. Osteopontin was not consistently detected at exposed predentin/dentin surfaces. However, gold particles were often found at the margin of resorption lacunae. Labeling was also seen over the Golgi region and cytoplasmic vesicles of odontoclasts and of neutrophils and fibroblast-like cells. The results suggest that accumulation of OPN at the predentin/dentin surface is not a prerequisite for adhesion of odontoclasts to the wall substance and that recruited odontoclasts produce OPN locally to mediate cell and/or matrix events within the resorption lacuna.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".