MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590561385 · doi:10.1071/rdv17n2ab40

40 CHARACTERIZATION OF EARLY G1 CELLS AS NUCLEAR DONORS FOR SOMATIC CELL CLONING IN CATTLE

2004· article· en· W1590561385 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A. Kasamatsu, Kazuhiro Saeki, Tomohiro Tamari, K Shirouzu, S. Taniguchi, Tomohiko Mitani, Y. Aoyagi, M. Urakawa, Atsushi Ideta, Kazuya Matsumoto, Yoshihiko Hosoi, A. Iritani

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsTransfectionMolecular biologyBiologyProliferating cell nuclear antigenCell cycleSomatic cell nuclear transferSomatic cellCell cultureCell growthBlastocystCellCell biologyEmbryoGeneEmbryogenesisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In somatic cell cloning, the cell cycle phase of the donor cells has critical impact on nuclear reprogramming and chromosomal normality of the reconstructed embryos. Recently, enhanced development to full term was obtained with embryos reconstructed with bovine fibroblasts soon after cell division (early G1 cells, Kasinathan P et al. 2001 Nat. Biotech. 19, 1176–1178; Urakawa M et al. 2004 Theriogenology 62, 714–728). In this study, to investigate the detailed cell cycle characteristics and gene expression of the early G1 cells as nuclear donors, we examined the cell proliferating and nuclear activity by detecting PCNA and Ki-67 in the cells, and the gene expression in the cells transfected with the luciferase gene. Bovine fibroblasts were transfected with chicken ß-actin/firefly luciferase fusion gene (ß-act/luc+), and stably transfected; cloned cells were used for cell analysis. We compared cell cycle characteristics for quiescent cells (0.4% serum for 7 days), cell doublets (early G1 cells) prepared by the “shake-off” method, and proliferating (30 to 40% confluency) cells. The presence of PCNA and Ki-67 and the incorporation of BrdU in the cells were determined by immunohistochemical analysis. The LUC+ signal (luminescence) in the cells was detected with an imaging photon counter for 10 consecutive min. Embryos reconstructed with these cells were cultured for 168 h for examination of blastocyst development. Experiments were repeated three times, and the data were analyzed with Fisher's PLSD test following ANOVA. Incorporation of BrdU was observed only in proliferating cells (24% of the cells). Neither PCNA nor Ki-67 signals were detected in the quiescent cells. PCNA was detected but Ki-67 was not detected in early G1 cells. Both PCNA and Ki-67 were detected in the proliferating cells. A strong LUC+ signal (6354 ± 673 pixels/cell) was detected in the proliferating cells, and weak signals were detected in the early G1 (2044 ± 303 pixels/cell, P < 0.05) and quiescent cells (617 ± 59 pixels/cell, P < 0.05). The rate of blastocyst development with early G1 cells was higher (45/133, 32%) than that with starved and proliferating cells (47/233, 21%, and 41/258, 14%, respectively, P < 0.05). These results indicate that early G1 cells were actively proliferating cells because of the positive PCNA signals, but their nuclei were silent because of the absence of Ki-67 signals and the weak LUC+ signals. These characteristics of the early G1 cells might enhance the development of the reconstructed embryos. This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for the 21st Century COE Program of the Japan MEXT, and by a grant from the Wakayama Prefecture Collaboration of Regional Entities for the Advancement of Technological Excellence of the JST.

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)0.000
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 score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207