MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127820402 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.105.040303

LY6A/E (SCA-1) Expression in the Mouse Testis

2005· article· en· W2127820402 on OpenAlexaff
Maaike P.A. van Bragt, Nadia Ciliberti, William L. Stanford, Dirk G. de Rooij, Ans M. M. van Pelt

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySertoli cellSpermatogenesisStem cellMesenchymal stem cellLeydig cellPopulationImmunohistochemistryTesticleCell biologyAndrologyEndocrinologyImmunologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, it was found by two research groups that LY6A, known widely in the stem cell community as stem cell antigen-1 or SCA-1, is expressed on testicular side population (SP) cells. Whether these SP cells are spermatogonial stem cells is a point of disagreement and, therefore, the identity of the LY6A-positive cells as well. We studied the expression pattern of LY6A in testis by immunohistochemistry and found it to be expressed in the interstitial tissue on peritubular myoid, endothelial, and spherical-shaped peritubular mesenchymal cells. To address the question whether LY6A has a function in spermatogenesis or testis development, we studied the testis of Ly6a(-/-) mice (allele Ly6a(tm1Pmf)). We found no morphological abnormalities or differences in numbers of spermatogonia, spermatocytes, Leydig cells, or macrophages in relation to the number of Sertoli cells. Therefore, we conclude that LY6A expression does not influence testis development or spermatogenesis and that spermatogonial stem cells are LY6A negative.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207