MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005092653 · doi:10.1645/ge-1395.1

Genotypic Characterization of an Epithelial Cell Line for the Study of Parasite–Epithelial Interactions

2008· article· en· W2005092653 on OpenAlexaff
André G. Buret, Yi-Chan Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parasitology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenotypeCell cultureEpitheliumParasite hostingPolymerase chain reactionIntestinal epitheliumIsozymePhenotypeCell biologyGeneMolecular biologyGeneticsEnzymeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The findings discussed in the present research note report the extensive genotypic characterization of an intestinal epithelial cell line originally obtained from a human patient. Although the line exhibits karyotypic anomalies, with 76 modal chromosomes, its immunological, biochemical, and physiological phenotype make it a well-suited model to study intestinal epithelial processes, including those involved during intestinal parasitism. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), isoenzyme analysis, and PCR gene product sequencing ultimately revealed that SCBN epithelial cells express a canine genotype. The observations held true for one of the early cell stocks obtained directly from the laboratory where the cell line was first isolated. Since no canine cells were used in that laboratory at that time, and in view of the normal canine modal chromosomal number of 78, the canine genotype of SCBN cells cannot be explained through simple laboratory contamination. The various characteristics of SCBN nonetheless make it a useful tool for research in epithelial biology, as well as in parasite-epithelial interactions. Its newly discovered genotypic characteristics are of significant relevance to researchers using this cell line.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ParasitologySame topicParasitic Infections and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207