Complex interactions among tissue restricted transcription factors and cofactors are critical for intestine specific gene expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
textabstractAs might be concluded from the general introduction about gene regulation, our\nunderstanding of how transcription factors regulate transcription ofLPH and SI is extensive.\nBoth LPH and SI are enterocyte specific membrane anchored enzymes that are necessary for the\ndigestion of nutrients present in the specific diets of mammals according to their age before and\nafter weaning. Previous work by Grand et. al. has demonstrated that LPH and SI are expressed in\ncomplex patterns along the vertical, horizontal, and developmental gradient of the small\nintestine. LPH and SI expression patterns coincide with important transitions during small\nintestine development. Furthermore, Krasinski et. al. demonstrated that specific regions in the\nLPH promoter contain the information necessary for the specific patterns of expression.\nKrasinski et. al also demonstrated that the vertical, horizontal, and developmental LPH and SI\nexpression patterns are regulated at the level of transcription. Therefore, LPH and SI genes are\nperfect markers for cell differentiation of small intestine.\nSeqeunce analysis of the 5 '-flanking regions ofLPH and SI genes revealed consensus\nbinding sites for Cdx-2, HNF-1, and GATA transcription factors. The families of these\ntranscription factors have all been indicated to play a role in cell differentiation and\nmorphogenesis. These transcription factors are turned on in early stages of intestinal\ndevelopment, are only expressed together in the small intestine, and their binding sites are in\nclose proximity to each other and the TAT A-box regions suggesting that they play an important\nrole in cell differentiation and intestine specific gene regulation. The close proximity of these\nbinding sites to each other and the fact that these transcription factors have been shown\nindividually to cooperate with comparable proteins for the regulation of gene expression, it is\nhypothesized that these factors act in concert to regulate LPH and SI transcription
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".