Formation and regeneration of a Wnt‐responsive junctional epithelium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To identify the molecular mechanisms mediating the persistent defensive functions of the self-renewing junctional epithelium (JE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: , were employed, along with three clinically relevant experimental scenarios where the function of the JE is disrupted: after tooth extraction, after a partial gingivectomy, and after a complete circumferential gingivectomy. RESULTS: Using transgenic Wnt reporter strains of mice, we established the JE is a Wnt-responsive epithelium beginning at the time of its formation and that it maintains this status into adulthood. After tooth extraction, progeny of the initial Wnt-responsive JE population directly contributed to healing and ultimately adopted an oral epithelium (OE) phenotype. In the traditional partial gingivectomy model, the JE completely regenerated and did so via progeny of the original Wnt-responsive population. However, following circumferential gingivectomy, the OE was incapable of re-establishing a functional JE. CONCLUSIONS: A Wnt-responsive niche at the interface between tooth and oral epithelia is required for a functional JE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".