MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041064967 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-5-s8-p132

About making a CHO production cell line “research-friendly” by genetic engineering

2011· article· en· W2041064967 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bernd Voedisch, Agnès Patoux, Jildou Sterkenburgh, Mirjam Buchs, Emily Barry, Cyril Allard, Sabine Geisse

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in Insects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProduction (economics)Line (geometry)BiotechnologyBioinformaticsComputational biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells for transient gene expression is gaining importance steadily, as it has been shown that both quality and quantity of proteins derived from CHO cells differs from and can even be superior to material derived from Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK293) cells [1][2][3][4].In order to augment yields HEK cell lines have been genetically modified, by e.g.stable integration of an expression cassette coding for the Epstein-Barr Virus Nuclear Antigen 1 (EBNA1) in conjunction with expression plasmid vectors containing the EBNA1 interaction site oriP.Here we describe the generation of a CHO cell line stably expressing the EBNA1 gene to enhance yields after large scale transient transfection with polyethylenimine (PEI).An expression plasmid featuring the EBNA1 gene was transfected into an in-house available CHO wild type cell line by nucleofection and several stable pools were established by antibiotic selection.In a first approach, 133 clones were then isolated by limiting dilution cloning and subsequently expanded for further analysis.The approach aimed at identifying clones showing both the presence of EBNA1 protein and enhanced yields after PEI-mediated transient expression of a reporter protein at the same time.Cell lysates or nuclear and cytoplasmic protein extracts from these clones were tested for presence of EBNA1 protein by Western Blot.An in-licensed cell line, CHO EBNALT85 (Icosagen AS, Tartu, Estonia) expressing the full length EBNA1 gene, and the HEK293-6E cell line (from the group of Y. Durocher, NRC, Canada) expressing a truncated EBNA1 gene served as positive controls.A number of commercially available anti-EBNA1 antibodies were tested in Western blotting, but most antibodies failed to detect the EBNA1 protein produced by these positive control cells.Only

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in InsectsFrench-language works237,207