Lamina-associated polypeptide 2 (LAP2) expression in fish and amphibians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Somatic and germinal cells of 15 fish and 33 amphibian species were examined by SDS-PAGE followed by immunoblotting to determine the expression of LAP2 (lamina-associated polypeptide 2). LAP2 expression in frogs, salamanders and fish does not vary with the mode of reproduction. In fish and frog cells, a rim-like LAP2 positive region was detected around the nucleus by indirect immunofluorescence microscopy. The cell distribution and expression patterns of LAP2 in fish, frogs and salamanders are comparable with those found in Xenopus and zebrafish. The mammalian somatic cell pattern, which may also occur in gymnophione amphibians, includes LAP2alpha, beta and gamma as major isoforms, whereas LAP2alpha does not occur in cells of fish, frogs and salamanders. In fish, LAP2gamma is the major isoform of somatic cells, suggesting that LAP2gamma may be ancestral. However, in the rainbow trout, as in frogs and salamanders, LAP2beta was the major somatic isoform. Fish and frog sperm only express low molecular weight polypeptides. In contrast, fish and frog oocytes express an oocyte-specific LAP2 isoform of high molecular weight. In the toad Bufo marinus this isoform becomes upregulated in pre-vitellogenic oocytes of 150-200 microm in diameter. The absence of LAP2alpha and the differential expression of LAP2 isoforms in somatic and germ cells, as found in fish and frogs, may be ancestral vertebrate characters. In spite of differences in developmental time, the LAP2 isoforms of somatic cells are upregulated during gastrulation, suggesting that LAP2 may be implicated in the early development of fish and frog.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".