MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987079925 · doi:10.1038/srep02433

Microfluidic isolation of highly pure embryonic stem cells using feeder-separated co-culture system

2013· article· en· W1987079925 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Qiushui Chen, Jing Wu, Qichen Zhuang, Xuexia Lin, Jie Zhang, Jin‐Ming Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooTsinghua UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaHarvard University
KeywordsHomeobox protein NANOGEmbryonic stem cellStem cellCell biologyCell cultureAlkaline phosphataseRegenerative medicineKOSRChemistryTransplantationMicrofluidicsMolecular biologyBiologyInduced pluripotent stem cellMaterials scienceBiochemistryNanotechnologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineered artificial tissues from stem cells show great potential in regenerative medicine, disease therapies and organ transplantation. To date, stem cells are typically co-cultured with inactivated feeder layers to maintain their undifferentiated state, and to ensure reliable cell purity. Herein, we propose a novel microfabricated approach for feeder-separated coculture of mouse embryonic stem (mES) cells on polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) porous membrane-assembled 3D-microdevice. Normal mouse embryonic fibroblasts (mEFs) without inactivation were specifically co-cultured with mES cells, resulting in the formation of mES cell colonies on spatially controlled co-culture with feeder layers. An excellent undifferentiated state was confirmed by the expressions of Nanog, octamer binding protein 4 (Oct-4) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) after 5 days culture. As a result, with the significant advantages of efficiency and simplicity, pure mES cell populations (a purity of 89.2%) from mEFs co-cultures were easily collected without any further purification or separation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations53
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207