Examination of gap junctional, intercellular communication by <i>in situ</i> electroporation on two co‐planar indium‐tin oxide electrodes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gap junctions are plasma membrane channels between neighboring cells. We previously described a powerful technique where gap junctional, intercellular communication (GJIC) of adherent cells can be examined by in situ electroporation on a slide, part of which is coated with electrically conductive and transparent indium-tin oxide. An electric pulse is applied through an electrode placed on the cells in the presence of the tracking dye, Lucifer yellow (LY). The pulse causes LY's penetration into the cells growing on the conductive part of the slide, and the subsequent migration of the dye to the non-electroporated cells growing on the non-conductive area is microscopically observed under fluorescence illumination. Although this technique is adequate for a number of cell lines, the turbulence generated as the electrode is removed can cause cell detachment, which makes GJIC examination problematic. In this communication, we describe a slide configuration where junctional communication can be examined in the absence of an upper electrode: Cells are grown on two co-planar electrodes separated by a barrier which diverts the electric field, rendering it vertical to the cell layer. The elimination of an upper electrode is especially valuable for the electroporation of sensitive cells, such as terminally differentiated adipocytes. This technique can also be used for the introduction of other non-permeant molecules such as peptides or siRNA, followed by examination of the cellular phenotype or gene expression levels in situ.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it