Rat Embryonic Stem-Like (ES-Like) Cells Can Contribute to Extraembryonic Tissues <i>In Vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite significant advances achieved through gene targeting in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells, this technology is presently only available in mice. Because the rat is a species of undeniable importance to biomedical research, attempts at derivation of rat ES cell lines have been ongoing for many years; however, the putative rat ES cell lines that have been reported to date have not yet displayed the ability to contribute in vivo to developing tissues following embryo injection. In contrast to previous studies, we describe herein the successful derivation and characterization of rat ES-like cell lines that not only express markers of undifferentiated cells, alkaline phosphatase (AP) activity and stage-specific embryonic antigen-1 (SSEA-1) cell surface antigen, but also retain expression of Oct4 (also known as Pou5f1) a homeodomain transcription factor and molecular marker of pluripotent cells. Notably, these rat ES-like cells, when injected into blastocysts transferred to pseudopregnant females, can contribute to developing extraembryonic tissues. This report demonstrates for the first time that rat ES-like cells can be derived efficiently, can express a panel of pluripotent cell markers, can be genetically modified in vitro and cryopreserved, and importantly, are capable of contributing to extraembryonic tissues in vivo.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".