MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Energy metabolism plasticity enables stemness programs

2012· review· en· W1910182523 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Clifford D.L. Folmes, Timothy J. Nelson, Petras P. Dzeja, André Terzic

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsReprogrammingCell biologyInduced pluripotent stem cellBiologyCell fate determinationEpigeneticsSomatic cellMitochondrial biogenesisStem cellCellular differentiationBioenergeticsMitochondrionCellGeneticsEmbryonic stem cellTranscription factorGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineering pluripotency through nuclear reprogramming and directing stem cells into defined lineages underscores cell fate plasticity. Acquisition of and departure from stemness are governed by genetic and epigenetic controllers, with modulation of energy metabolism and associated signaling increasingly implicated in cell identity determination. Transition from oxidative metabolism, typical of somatic tissues, into glycolysis is a prerequisite to fuel-proficient reprogramming, directing a differentiated cytotype back to the pluripotent state. The glycolytic metabotype supports the anabolic and catabolic requirements of pluripotent cell homeostasis. Conversely, redirection of pluripotency into defined lineages requires mitochondrial biogenesis and maturation of efficient oxidative energy generation and distribution networks to match demands. The vital function of bioenergetics in regulating stemness and lineage specification implicates a broader role for metabolic reprogramming in cell fate decisions and determinations of tissue regenerative potential.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations93
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207