MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983723781 · doi:10.3791/2476

Purification of Progenitors from Skeletal Muscle

2011· article· en· W1983723781 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Yi, Fábio Rossi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgenitor cellCell biologyBiologyMyocyteMyogenesisPopulationSkeletal muscleStem cellEmbryonic stem cellProgenitorCell sortingFlow cytometryImmunologyAnatomyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skeletal muscle contains multiple progenitor populations of distinct embryonic origins and developmental potential. Myogenic progenitors, usually residing in a "satellite cell position" between the myofiber plasma membrane and the laminin-rich basement membrane that ensheaths it, are self-renewing cells that are solely committed to the myogenic lineage. We have recently described a second class of vessel associated progenitors that can generate myofibroblasts and white adipocytes, which responds to damage by efficiently entering proliferation and provides trophic support to myogenic cells during tissue regeneration. One of the most trusted assays to determine the developmental and regenerative potential of a given cell population relies on their isolation and transplantation. To this end we have optimized protocols for their purification by flow cytometry from enzymatically dissociated muscle, which we will outline in this article. The populations obtained using this method will contain either myogenic or fibro/adipogenic colony forming cells: no other cell types are capable of expanding in vitro or surviving in vivo delivery. However, when these populations are used immediately after the sort for molecular analysis (e.g qRT-PCR) one must keep in mind that the freshly sorted subsets may contain other contaminant cells that lack the ability of forming colonies or engrafting recipients.

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)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations31
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207