Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to this special issue of PPAR Research: PPARs, RXRs, and Stem Cells. Within the past decade, there has been a burgeoning interest regarding the mechanisms regulating stem cell regeneration and differentiation in embryonic and adult tissues. Recent studies have identified stem or progenitor cells within most, if not all, somatic tissues. Cell biologists have explored a number of transcriptional regulatory pathways in the context of stem cell self-renewal and lineage commitment. While there has been a wealth of attention given to the Wnt pathway, Oct4, nanog, and STAT transcription factors in this context, the role of PPARs and related nuclear hormone receptors in regulating stem cells remains relatively unexplored. The current issue of PPAR Research has called for manuscripts that will spotlight the PPAR-Stem Cell relationship. We are fortunate to have received a mixture of excellent primary research manuscripts and comprehensive review articles from experts in the field. Mullen, Gu, and Cooney (Houston, Tex) have explored the role of nuclear hormone receptors in murine embryonic stem cell differentiation and function. Purton (Boston, Mass) has comprehensively reviewed the literature concerning the role of retinoid receptors in hematopoietic stem cells. Casteilla, Cousin, and Carmona (Toulouse, Fla) evaluate the classical role of PPARγ as an adipogenic regulator in adipose tissue-derived stromal/stem cells (ASCs). Three investigators use bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) models. Isales et al. (Augusta, Ga) provide novel findings relating to the role of mystatin and GILZ on adipogenesis in response to PPAR ligands. Shockley et al. (Bar Harbor, Me & Little Rock, Ark) report the transcriptomic response of MSCs to PPARγ agonists. Duque, Rivas, and Akter (Montreal, Canada) describe a role for farnesylation in modulating MSC adipogenesis. Finally, Cimini et al. (L’Aquila, IT) provide novel insights into the effect of PPARγ during neural stem cell (NSC) astroglial differentiation. We hope that this issue will stimulate other investigators to pursue novel avenues related to the converging themes of PPARs, nuclear hormone receptors, and stem cell biology. The outcomes of such investigations will have far reaching implications regarding fundamental questions relating to normal development, tumor biology, and tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Z. Elizabeth Floyd Jeffrey M. Gimble
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".