MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155846229 · doi:10.1177/0022034510384625

Altered Ion-responsive Gene Expression in <i>Mmp20</i> Null Mice

2010· article· en· W2155846229 on OpenAlexaff
Coralee E. Tye, Ruchira Sharma, Charles E. Smith, John D. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGene expressionNull (SQL)GeneCell biologyChemistryBiologyGeneticsComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During enamel maturation, hydroxyapatite crystallites expand in volume, releasing protons that acidify the developing enamel. This acidity is neutralized by the buffering activity of carbonic anhydrases and ion transporters. Less hydroxyapatite forms in matrix metalloproteinase-20 null (Mmp20(-/-)) mouse incisors, because enamel thickness is reduced by approximately 50%. We therefore asked if ion regulation was altered in Mmp20(-/-) mouse enamel. Staining of wild-type and Mmp20(-/-) incisors with pH indicators demonstrated that wild-type mice had pronounced changes in enamel pH as development progressed. These pH changes were greatly attenuated in Mmp20(-/-) mice. Expression of 4 ion-regulatory genes (Atp2b4, Slc4a2, Car6, Cftr) was significantly decreased in enamel organs from Mmp20(-/-) mice. Notably, expression of secreted carbonic anhydrase (Car6) was reduced to almost undetectable levels in the null enamel organ. In contrast, Odam and Klk4 expression was unaffected. We concluded that a feedback mechanism regulates ion-responsive gene expression during enamel development.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental ResearchSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207