MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075564676 · doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2013.09.023

FGF4 is a limiting factor controlling the proportions of primitive endoderm and epiblast in the ICM of the mouse blastocyst

2013· article· en· W2075564676 on OpenAlexafffund
Dayana Krawchuk, Nobuko Honma-Yamanaka, Shihadeh Anani, Yojiro Yamanaka

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEpiblastBiologyBlastocystEmbryoFibroblast growth factorInner cell massCell biologyGeneticsAndrologyEmbryogenesisGastrulationReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primitive endoderm (PE) and epiblast (EPI) are two lineages derived from the inner cell mass (ICM) of the E3.5 blastocyst. Although it has been shown that FGF signaling is necessary and sufficient for PE specification in the ICM, it is unknown what mechanisms control the PE/EPI proportion in the embryo. Because modulation of FGF signaling alone is sufficient to convert all ICM cells to either PE or EPI, a model has been proposed in which the amount of FGF in the embryo controls the PE/EPI proportion. To test this model, we reduced the amount of FGF4, the major FGF in the preimplantation embryo, using various genotypes of Fgf4 mutants. We observed a maternal contribution of Fgf4 in PE specification, but it was dispensable for development. In addition, upon treatment of Fgf4 mutant embryos with exogenous FGF4, we observed a progressive increase of PE proportions in an FGF4 dose dependent manner, regardless of embryo genotype. We conclude that the amount of FGF4 is limited and regulates PE/EPI proportions in the mouse embryo.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations145
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental BiologySame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207