MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968959863 · doi:10.1159/000237158

Phenotypic Changes among Hybrid Rat Mast Cells

2009· article· en· W1968959863 on OpenAlexaff
Yunli Zheng, Karol D. McNeill, Edward S. Rector, Arnold Froese

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Immunology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMast cells and histamine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenotypeBiologyMast cellCell cultureMolecular biologyImmunologyCell biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rat peritoneal mast cells and 6-thioguanine-resistant rat basophilic leukemia cells, representative of connective tissue-type (CTMC) and mucosal (MMC) mast cells, respectively, were fused using polyethylene glycol. Four out of 14 primary hybrid mast cell lines contained more than 50% of CTMC as demonstrated by histochemical staining. Two cell lines, one predominantly of the CTMC and the other of the MMC phenotype, were selected for further study. Among these, the phenotype was also confirmed by analysis for rat mast cell protease I and by mediator release triggered by compound 48/80 and ionophore A23187. The CTMC phenotype disappeared after culturing cells for 2 weeks. The change in phenotype did not significantly alter the mediator release due to calcium ionophore A23187. Repeated cloning of cells bearing the CTMC phenotype did not yield a cloned line of cells expressing the CTMC phenotype only, although it prolonged the persistence of this phenotype. During the period of CTMC phenotype loss, a drop in cellular DNA content occurred, suggesting that chromosome instability may, at least partially, have been responsible for the phenotypic changes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and ImmunologySame topicMast cells and histamineFrench-language works237,207