RUNX transcription factors are essential in maintaining epididymal epithelial differentiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apart from the androgen receptor, transcription factors (TFs) that are required for the development and formation of the different segments of the epididymis have remained unknown. We identified TF families expressed in the developing epididymides, of which many showed segment specificity. From these TFs, down-regulation of runt related transcription factors (RUNXs) 1 and 2 expression coincides with epithelial regression in Dicer1 cKO mice. Concomitant deletion of both Runx1 and Runx2 in a mouse epididymal epithelial cell line affected cell morphology, adhesion and mobility in vitro. Furthermore, lack of functional RUNXs severely disturbed the formation of 3D epididymal organoid-like structures. Transcriptomic analysis of the epididymal cell organoid-like structures indicated that RUNX1 and RUNX2 are involved in the regulation of MAPK signaling, NOTCH pathway activity, and EMT-related gene expression. This suggests that RUNXs are master regulators of several essential signaling pathways, and necessary for the maintenance of proper differentiation of the epididymal epithelium.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".