Disinhibiting an Inhibitor: Genetic Engineering Leads to Improvements in Recombinant Inhibin A Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhibins were first postulated as hypothetical hormones in the 1930s but were not purified until the 1980s (1). This delay is emblematic of the many challenges inhibin researchers have faced over the past century. Although early progress in the field was slow, work in the 1970s lay the foundation for our current conception of inhibins as gonadally derived hormones that selectively regulate FSH synthesis and secretion by pituitary gonadotrope cells (2–4). More recent research indicates that inhibins may have pleiotropic actions, regulating extrapituitary tissues, including the ovaries and bone (1). Nonetheless, it was in the context of FSH regulation that 2 forms of inhibin, A and B, were purified from ovarian follicular fluid and shown to be heterodimers of a single α-subunit disulfide-linked to one of two β-subunits (5–8). The sequence similarity of their β-subunits to the contemporaneously characterized transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) placed the inhibins in the larger TGFβ superfamily, which now includes more than 30 members in mammals.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".