MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039806656 · doi:10.1083/jcb.200502073

Support for the immortal strand hypothesis: neural stem cells partition DNA asymmetrically in vitro

2005· article· en· W2039806656 on OpenAlexaff
Phillip Karpowicz, Cindi M. Morshead, Angela Kam, Eric Jervis, John Ramunas, Vincent Y. S. Cheng, Derek van der Kooy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDNAMitosisThymidineNeural stem cellIn vitroDNA synthesisCell biologyStem cellBromodeoxyuridineMolecular biologyGeneticsCell growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The immortal strand hypothesis proposes that asymmetrically dividing stem cells (SCs) selectively segregate chromosomes that bear the oldest DNA templates. We investigated cosegregation in neural stem cells (NSCs). After exposure to the thymidine analogue 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU), which labels newly synthesized DNA, a subset of neural precursor cells were shown to retain BrdU signal. It was confirmed that some BrdU-retaining cells divided actively, and that these cells exhibited some characteristics of SCs. This asymmetric partitioning of DNA then was demonstrated during mitosis, and these results were further supported by real time imaging of SC clones, in which older and newly synthesized DNA templates were distributed asymmetrically after DNA synthesis. We demonstrate that NSCs are unique among precursor cells in the uneven partitioning of genetic material during cell divisions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations190
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207