Tubulobulbar complexes contribute to basal junction remodeling in the rat seminiferous epithelium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tubulobulbar complexes are cytoskeleton-related membrane structures that develop at sites of intercellular attachment in the mammalian seminiferous epithelium. At apical junctions between Sertoli cells and spermatids the structures internalize adhesion junctions and are a component of the sperm release mechanism. Here I explore the possibility that tubulobulbar complexes that form at the ‘blood-testis barrier’ are sub-cellular machines that internalize basal junction complexes. Electron microscopy reveals that morphologically identifiable tight and gap junctions are present in basal tubulobulbar complexes in rats. In addition, immunological probes for claudin-11 (CLDN11), connexin-43 (GJA1), and nectin-2 (PVRL2) react with linear structures at the light level that I interpret as tubulobulbar complexes, and probes for early endosome antigen 1 (EEA1) and Rab5 (RAB5A) react in similar locations. Significantly, fluorescence staining patterns for actin and claudin-11 indicate that the amount of junction present is dramatically reduced over the time period that tubulobulbar complexes are known to be most prevalent during spermatogenesis. I also demonstrate, using electron microscopy and fluorescence microscopy, that tubulobulbar complexes develop at basal junctions in primary cultures of Sertoli cells. These structures not only morphologically resemble their in vivo counterparts, but they also contain junction proteins. I use this culture system together with transfection techniques to show that junction proteins from one transfected cell project into and are likely internalized by adjacent non-transfected cells as predicted by the junction internalization hypothesis. On the basis of my findings I present a new model for basal junction remodeling as it relates to spermatocyte translocation in the seminiferous 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".