Divergent cell cycle kinetics of midgestation ventricular cells entail a higher engraftment efficiency after cell transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac progenitor cells (CPCs) in the primary and secondary heart fields contribute to the formation of all major cell types in the mammalian heart. While some CPCs remain undifferentiated in midgestation and postnatal hearts, very little is known about their proliferation and differentiation potential. In this study, using an Nkx2.5 cell lineage-restricted reporter mouse model, we provide evidence that Nkx2.5(+) CPCs and cardiomyocytes can be readily distinguished from nonmyocyte population using a combination of Nkx2.5 and sarcomeric myosin staining of dispersed ventricular cell preparations. Assessment of cell number and G1/S transit rates during ventricular development indicates that the proliferative capacity of Nkx2.5(+) cell lineage gradually decreases despite a progressive increase in Nkx2.5(+) cell number. Notably, midgestation ventricles (E11.5) contain a larger number of CPCs (∼2-fold) compared with E14.5 ventricles, and the embryonic CPCs retain cardiomyogenic differentiation potential. The proliferation rates are consistently higher in embryonic CPCs compared with myocyte population in both E11.5 and E14.5 ventricles. Results from two independent cell transplantation models revealed that E11.5 ventricular cells with a higher percentage of proliferating CPCs can form larger grafts compared with E14.5 ventricular cells. Furthermore, transplantation of embryonic ventricular cells did not cause any undesirable side effects such as arrhythmias. These data underscore the benefits of donor cell developmental staging in myocardial repair.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".