MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Preliminary Investigation of Cardiac Stem/Progenitor Cells in the Lizard Heart

2015· article· en· W1794573615 on OpenAlexaff
Kathy Jacyniak, Danika Hawthorne, Lisa Robertson, Matthew K. Vickaryous

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicInvertebrate Immune Response Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgenitor cellBiologyStem cellImmunostainingCell biologyRegeneration (biology)AnatomyImmunologyImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resident stem/progenitor cell populations have been identified within many vertebrate tissues, including the hearts of teleost fish, urodeles, and mammals. Although often rare, these populations are considered crucial for normal physiological repair, and may also play a role in tissue regeneration. Here we provide preliminary evidence of the presence of resident cardiac stem/progenitor cells within the lizard Eublepharis macularius (the leopard gecko). Using Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen (PCNA) immunostaining, we determined that gecko cardiomyocytes continue to proliferate into adulthood. Next, we performed a 5‐bromo‐2'‐deoxyuridine (BrdU) pulse‐chase experiment to identify slow cycling cells within the normal (uninjured) heart. We found BrdU label‐retaining cells within cardiac tissues chased for 4, 6 and 20 weeks within the epicardium and myocardium of the ventricular wall and trabeculae, indicating that quiescent or slow‐cycling cells are present. Finally, we observed that select BrdU label‐retaining cells at 20 weeks were also immunopositive for the cardiac progenitor marker c‐kit. Based on these findings, we predict that putative cardiac stem/progenitor cells are present in the gecko heart.

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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicInvertebrate Immune Response MechanismsFrench-language works237,207