Immunohistochemical localization of integrin alpha V beta 3 and osteopontin suggests that they do not interact during embryo implantation in ruminants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that trophoblast attachment requires co-expression of integrin alpha V beta 3 and its ligand osteopontin at the fetal-maternal interface. Until now the expression patterns of integrin alpha V beta 3 and osteopontin in the pregnant bovine uterus were unknown. The objectives of this study were to localize integrin alpha V beta 3 and osteopontin in bovine and sheep endometrium during the periimplantation period and to compare the distribution patterns using antibodies that had not yet been tested in sheep. METHODS: Cell compartments within endometrial tissue sections were scored for immunohistochemical staining intensity and data were analyzed to determine the effects of day of pregnancy or cycle. RESULTS: In pregnant bovine endometrium, integrin alpha V beta 3 was detected in luminal epithelium, stroma, myometrium and smooth muscle. A strong band of immunoreactivity was observed in the subepithelial stroma of intercaruncular regions, but there was reduced reactivity in the caruncles and glands. Bovine trophoblast did not express integrin alpha V beta 3 at any stage of pregnancy. In ovine endometrium a different pattern of staining for integrin alpha V beta 3 was observed. Reactivity was not present in the luminal epithelium or trophoblast. There was strong staining of the deep glands and no reactivity in the superficial glands. Osteopontin distribution was similar for sheep and cattle. For both species, apical staining was present on the luminal epithelium and glands and on embryonic tissues. CONCLUSION: In ruminants, integrin alpha V beta 3 and osteopontin do not co-localize at the fetal-maternal interface indicating that these proteins could not interact to facilitate embryo attachment as has been proposed in other species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".