MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330141368 · doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00111.2002

Expression of multiple connexins in the rat epididymis indicates a complex regulation of gap junctional communication

2003· article· en· W2330141368 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Dufresne, Kenneth W. Finnson, Mary Gregory, Daniel G. Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpididymisColocalizationBiologyGap junctionBasal (medicine)Cell biologyMessenger RNAInternal medicineEndocrinologyAndrologyGeneGeneticsMedicineIntracellular

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the epididymis, Cx43 forms gap junctions between principal and basal cells but not between adjacent principal cells. Cx30.3, 31.1, and 32 were identified in adult rat epididymis by RT-PCR, whereas Cx26 was present in young rats. Postnatal development studies indicate that Cx26 mRNA was detectable only in the caput-corpus region of the epididymis and that levels increased by fivefold during the first 4 wk postnatally, when epithelial cells differentiate, and decrease to nondetectable levels thereafter. Cx31.1 and Cx32 mRNA levels were low throughout the epididymis in young rats and began to increase in the second and third weeks postnatally, when Cx26 levels are decreasing. Both Cx26 and Cx32 were localized to the lateral plasma membranes between adjacent epithelial cells of the epididymis. Colocalization studies indicate that Cx26 and Cx32 exist either independently of one another or can colocalize along the lateral plasma membrane of epithelial cells in young rats or between principal cells in the adult rat epididymis. The presence of multiple connexins (Cxs) and their differential regulation suggest that these play different roles in epididymal 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations61
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Cell PhysiologySame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207