Epididymis-specific lipocalin promoters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our goal is to decipher which DNA sequences are required for tissue-specific expression of epididymal genes. At least 6 epididymis-specific lipocalin genes are known. These are differently regulated and regionalized in the epididymis. Lipocalin 5 (Lcn5 or mE-RABP) and Lipocalin 8 (Lcn8 or mEP17) are homologous genes belonging to the epididymis-specific lipocalin gene cluster. Both the 5 kb promoter fragment of the Lcn5 gene and the 5.3 kb promoter fragment of the Lcn8 gene can direct transgene expression in the epididymis (Lcn5 to the distal caput and Lcn8 to the initial segment), indicating that these promoter fragments contain important cis-regulatory element(s) for epididymis-specific gene expression. To define further the fragments regulating gene expression, the Lcn5 promoter was examined in transgenic mice and immortalized epididymal cell lines. After serial deletion, the 1.8 kb promoter fragment of the Lcn5 gene was sufficient for tissue-specific and region-specific gene expression in transgenic mice. Transient transfection analysis revealed that a transcription factor forkhead box A2 (Foxa2) interacts with androgen receptor and binds to the 100 bp fragment of the Lcn5 promoter between 1.2 kb and 1.3 kb and that Foxa2 expression inhibits androgen-dependent induction of the Lcn5 promoter activity. Immunohistochemistry indicated a restricted expression of Foxa2 in the epididymis where endogenous Lcn5 gene expression is suppressed and that the Foxa2 inhibition of the Lcn5 promoter is consistent with the lack of expression of Lcn5 in the corpus and cauda. Our approach provides a basic strategy for further analysis of the epididymal lipocalin gene regulation and flexible control of epididymal function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".