MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Generation and clonal isolation of retinal stem cells from human embryonic stem cells

2012· article· en· W1581198229 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Clarke, Brian G. Ballios, Derek van der Kooy

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Eye InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyEmbryonic stem cellStem cellCell biologyRetinalTransplantationRetinaPAX6Adult stem cellEye developmentPopulationRetinal pigment epitheliumImmunologyPhenotypeGeneticsTranscription factorNeuroscienceMedicineInternal medicineBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retinal stem cells (RSCs) are present within the pigmented ciliary epithelium (CE) of the adult human eye and produce progeny that differentiate in vitro into all neural retinal subtypes and retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE). We hypothesized that a RSC population, similar to the adult CE-derived RSC, is contained within pigmented colonies that arise in long-term cultures of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) suggested to recapitulate retinal development in vitro. Single pigmented hESC-derived cells were isolated and plated in serum-free media containing growth factors and, after 2 weeks, clonal sphere colonies containing both pigmented and non-pigmented cells were observed. These colonies expressed the early retinal transcription factors Rx, Chx10 and Pax6, and could be dissociated and replated as single cells to form secondary clonal colonies. When allowed to differentiate, expression of markers for both RPE and neurons was observed. Rhodopsin expression was detected after explant co-culture and transplantation into the developing mouse eye as well as following treatment with soluble factors in vitro. We show that RSCs emerge in an in vitro model of retinal development and are a potential source of human photoreceptors for use in transplantation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207