Evaluation of lysozyme and lactoferrin in lacrimal and other ocular glands of bison and cattle and in tears of bison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate lactoferrin and lysozyme content in various ocular glands of bison and cattle and in tears of bison. SAMPLE POPULATION: Tissues of ocular glands obtained from 15 bison and 15 cattle and tears collected from 38 bison. PROCEDURE: Immunohistochemical analysis was used to detect lysozyme and lactoferrin in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections of the ocular glands. Protein gel electrophoresis was used to analyze ocular glands and pooled bison tears by use of a tris-glycine gel and SDS-PAGE. Western blotting was used to detect lactoferrin and lysozyme. RESULTS: Immunohistochemical staining for lactoferrin was evident in the lacrimal gland and gland of the third eyelid in cattle and bison and the deep gland of the third eyelid (Harder's gland) in cattle. Equivocal staining for lactoferrin was seen for the Harder's gland in bison. An 80-kd band (lactoferrin) was detected via electrophoresis and western blots in the lacrimal gland and gland of the third eyelid in cattle and bison, Harder's glands of cattle, and bison tears. An inconsistent band was seen in Harder's glands of bison. Lysozyme was not detected in the lacrimal gland of cattle or bison with the use of immunohistochemical analysis or western blots. Western blots of bison tears did not reveal lysozyme. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Distribution of lactoferrin and a lack of lysozyme are similar in the lacrimal gland of cattle and bison. Differences in other tear components may be responsible for variability in the susceptibility to infectious corneal diseases that exists between bison and cattle.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".