MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006181897 · doi:10.1002/dvdy.22112

Functional characterization of cardiac progenitor cells and their derivatives in the embryonic heart post‐chamber formation

2009· article· en· W2006181897 on OpenAlexafffund
Nichole McMullen, Feixiong Zhang, Adam Hotchkiss, Frédéric Bretzner, Jennifer Wilson, Hong Ma, Karim Wafa, Robert M. Brownstone, Kishore B.S. Pasumarthi

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Dynamics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEmbryonic stem cellBiologyEmbryonic heartCell biologyProgenitor cellMuscarinic acetylcholine receptorStimulationReceptorMyocyteInternal medicineEndocrinologyStem cellBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is scant information on the fate of cardiac progenitor cells (CPC) in the embryonic heart after chamber specification. Here we simultaneously tracked three lineage-specific markers (Nkx2.5, MLC2v, and ANF) and confirmed that CPCs with an Nkx2.5+MLC2v-ANF- phenotype are present in the embryonic (E) day 11.5 mouse ventricular myocardium. We demonstrated that these CPCs could give rise to working cardiomyocytes and conduction system cells. Using a two-photon imaging analysis, we found that the majority of CPCs are not capable of developing Ca2+ transients in response to beta-adrenergic receptor stimulation. In contrast, Nkx2.5+ cells expressing MLC2v but not ANF are capable of developing functional Ca2+ transients. We showed that Ca2+ transients could be invoked in Nkx2.5+MLC2v+ANF+ cells only upon inhibition of Gi, muscarinic receptors, or nitric oxide synthase (NOS) signaling pathways. Our data suggest that these inhibitory pathways may delay functional specification in a subset of developing ventricular cells.

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 score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental DynamicsSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207