MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051386242 · doi:10.1186/1472-6750-8-7

Laser surgery of zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos using femtosecond laser pulses: Optimal parameters for exogenous material delivery, and the laser's effect on short- and long-term development

2008· article· en· W2051386242 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Biotechnology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBiologyNotochordDanioZebrafishCell biologyAnatomyLaserFertilisationEmbryoEmbryogenesisReproductive technologyOpticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Femtosecond (fs) laser pulses have recently received wide interest as an alternative tool for manipulating living biological systems. In various model organisms the excision of cellular components and the intracellular delivery of foreign exogenous materials have been reported. However, the effect of the applied fs laser pulses on cell viability and development has yet to be determined. Using the zebrafish (Danio rerio) as our animal model system, we address both the short- and long-term developmental changes following laser surgery on zebrafish embryonic cells. RESULTS: An exogenous fluorescent probe, fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC), was successfully introduced into blastomere cells and found to diffuse throughout all developing cells. Using the reported manipulation tool, we addressed whether the applied fs laser pulses induced any short- or long-term developmental effects in embryos reared to 2 and 7 days post-fertilization (dpf). Using light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy we compared key developmental features of laser-manipulated and control samples, including the olfactory pit, dorsal, ventral and pectoral fins, notochord, pectoral fin buds, otic capsule, otic vesicle, neuromast patterning, and kinocilia of the olfactory pit rim and cristae of the lateral wall of the ear. CONCLUSION: In our study, no significant differences in hatching rates and developmental morphologies were observed in laser-manipulated samples relative to controls. This tool represents an effective non-destructive technique for potential medical and biological applications.

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.

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 score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.237 · 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