Faculty Opinions recommendation of Adult pituitary cell maintenance: lineage-specific contribution of self-duplication.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of a stable pool of progenitor/stem cells in the adult pituitary has renewed the interest of identifying mechanisms for maintenance of pituitary cells throughout life. Whereas developmental studies have shown that progenitor expansion is the major source of new differentiated cells during pituitary organogenesis, the contribution of these progenitors for maintenance of the adult tissue is not clear although progenitors were clearly involved in cell expansion following end-organ ablation, notably after adrenalectomy and/or gonadectomy. We have used a genetic trick that eliminates dividing cells by apoptosis in order to assess the contribution of differentiated corticotropes and melanotropes for maintenance of their population in the adult pituitary. The system relies on chromosome instability created by the action of the Cre recombinase on inverted loxP sites. Expression of Cre recombinase in corticotropes and melanotropes led to progressive loss of corticotropes whereas melanotropes were unaffected. Because the Cre transgene is not expressed in progenitors, the data indicate that maintenance of the adult corticotrope pool is primarily due to self-duplication of differentiated cells. In contrast, melanotropes do not divide. Maintenance of corticotropes by self-duplication contrasts with the reported proliferative response of undifferentiated cells observed after adrenalectomy. If corticotrope reentry into cell cycle constitutes a normal mechanism to maintain the adult corticotrope pool, this same mechanism may also be perturbed during corticotrope adenoma development in Cushing's disease. PMID: 23754801 Funding information This work was supported by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Grant ID: 83362-1 Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Grant ID: 82880-1 Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Grant ID: 126110-1
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.474 | 0.342 |
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".