Zebrafish ProVEGF-C Expression, Proteolytic Processing and Inhibitory Effect of Unprocessed ProVEGF-C during Fin Regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In zebrafish, vascular endothelial growth factor-C precursor (proVEGF-C) processing occurs within the dibasic motif HSIIRR(214) suggesting the involvement of one or more basic amino acid-specific proprotein convertases (PCs) in this process. In the present study, we examined zebrafish proVEGF-C expression and processing and the effect of unprocessed proVEGF-C on caudal fin regeneration. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cell transfection assays revealed that the cleavage of proVEGF-C, mainly mediated by the proprotein convertases Furin and PC5 and to a less degree by PACE4 and PC7, is abolished by PCs inhibitors or by mutation of its cleavage site (HSIIRR(214) into HSIISS(214)). In vitro, unprocessed proVEGF-C failed to activate its signaling proteins Akt and ERK and to induce cell proliferation. In vivo, following caudal fin amputation, the induction of VEGF-C, Furin and PC5 expression occurs as early as 2 days post-amputation (dpa) with a maximum levels at 4-7 dpa. Using immunofluorescence staining we localized high expression of VEGF-C and the convertases Furin and PC5 surrounding the apical growth zone of the regenerating fin. While expression of wild-type proVEGF-C in this area had no effect, unprocessed proVEGF-C inhibited fin regeneration. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCES: Taken together, these data indicate that zebrafish fin regeneration is associated with up-regulation of VEGF-C and the convertases Furin and PC5 and highlight the inhibitory effect of unprocessed proVEGF-C on fin regeneration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".