MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963604047 · doi:10.1089/cpt.2006.9990

Effect of Slow Freezing Versus Vitrification on the Recovery of Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells

2007· article· en· W1963604047 on OpenAlexaff
Helena Miszta-Lane, P. Grantley Gill, Mohammadreza Mirbolooki, Jonathan R.T. Lakey

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Preservation Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitrificationCryopreservationAndrologyBiologyEmbryonic stem cellCloning (programming)EmbryoAlkaline phosphataseMolecular biologyStem cellCell biologyGeneticsEnzymeBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to cryopreserve mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells R1 line and determine cell viability, morphology, the number of colonies, and the Alkaline Phosphatase (AP) activity. In addition, the expression of transcription factors such as the stage-specific antigen (SSEA-1) and Octamer-4 (Oct-4) were evaluated before and after cryopreservation. The effects of two methods of cryopreservation, slow freezing and vitrification, were studied. The ES cells were cryopreserved either as single cells or as clumps. The viability of a single cell after slow freezing was 88%, but after vitrification no single cell was recovered. Surviving clumps after slow freezing quickly recovered and exhibited a morphology indistinguishable from noncryopreserved cells. After vitrification, 2 weeks of culture were required for the cells in clumps to proliferate enough for subculturing. Analysis of cloning efficiency and the colonies morphology were based on a mouse colony rating scale and their characteristic. The colonies from the slow-freezing group were compared to colonies from the control group, which were the cells before cryopreservation, and they showed the same cloning efficiency and morphology. The colonies from the vitrified group were compared to the colonies from the control group, and they showed differences in cloning efficiency on the mouse colony rating scale A (<0.05) and C (<0.05) but they did not show differences in their morphology. The biggest clumps from both experimental groups showed a reduction of viability in the center area compared to the fresh ones. The survival rate of the clumps in the slow-freezing and rapid-thawing group was 75% and in the vitrified group 25%. The colonies from the control group and both experimental cryopreservation groups show the same activity of AP, and they were all positive for SSEA-1 and Oct-4. The conventional slow-freezing method of cryopreservation of single cells and clumps is reliable and effective for the cryopreservation of mouse R1 ES cells. Vitrification can be used for cryopreservation of these same cell clumps but with lower recovery using the conditions that we used.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell Preservation TechnologySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207