Finding an Optimal Corneal Xenograft Using Comparative Analysis of Corneal Matrix Proteins Across Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous animal species have been proposed as sources of corneal tissue for obtaining decellularized xenografts. The selection of an appropriate animal model must take into consideration the differences in the composition and structure of corneal proteins between humans and other animal species in order to minimize immune response and improve outcome of the xenotransplant. Here, we compared the amino-acid sequences of 16 proteins present in the corneal stromal matrix of 14 different animal species using Basic Local Alignment Search Tool, and calculated a similarity score compared to the respective human sequence. Primary amino acid structures, isoelectric point and grand average of hydropathy (GRAVY) values of the 7 most abundant proteins (i.e. collagen α-1 (I), α-1 (VI), α-2 (I) and α-3 (VI), as well as decorin, lumican, and keratocan) were also extracted and compared to those of human. The pig had the highest similarity score (91.8%). All species showed a lower proline content compared to human. Isoelectric point of pig (7.1) was the closest to the human. Most species have higher GRAVY values compared to human except horse. Our results suggest that porcine cornea has a higher relative suitability for corneal transplantation into humans compared to other studied species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".