Connexin26 expression in brain parenchymal cells demonstrated by targeted connexin ablation in transgenic mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Astrocytes are known to express the gap junction forming proteins connexin30 (Cx30) and connexin43 (Cx43), but it has remained controversial whether these cells also express connexin26 (Cx26). To investigate this issue further, we examined immunofluorescence labelling of glial connexins in wild-type vs. transgenic mice with targeted deletion of Cx26 in neuronal and glial cells (Cx26fl/fl:Nestin-Cre mice). The Cx26 antibodies utilized specifically recognized Cx26 and lacked cross reaction with highly homologous Cx30, as demonstrated by immunoblotting and immunofluorescence in Cx26-transfected and Cx30-transfected C6 glioma cells. Punctate immunolabelling of Cx26 with these antibodies was observed in leptomeninges and subcortical brain regions. This labelling was absent in subcortical areas of Cx26fl/fl:Nestin-Cre mice, but persisted in leptomeningeal tissues of these mice, thereby distinguishing localization of Cx26 between parenchymal and non-parenchymal tissue. In subcortical brain parenchyma, Cx26-positive puncta were often co-localized with astrocytic Cx43, and some were localized along astrocyte cell bodies and processes immunolabelled for glial fibrillary acidic protein. Cx26-positive puncta were also co-localized with punctate labelling of Cx47 around oligodendrocyte somata. Comparisons of Cx26 labelling in rodent species revealed a lower density of Cx26-positive puncta and a more restricted distribution in subcortical regions of mouse compared with rat brain, perhaps partly explaining reported difficulties in detection of Cx26 in mouse brain parenchyma using antibodies or Cx26 gene reporters. These results support our earlier observations of Cx26 expression in astrocytes and its ultrastructural localization in individual gap junction plaques formed between astrocytes as well as in heterotypic gap junctions between astrocytes and oligodendrocytes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".