An Improved Technique for Chromosomal Analysis of Human ES and iPS Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolonged in vitro culture of human embryonic stem (hES) cells can result in chromosomal abnormalities believed to confer a selective advantage. This potential occurrence has crucial implications for the appropriate use of hES cells for research and therapeutic purposes. In view of this, time-point karyotypic evaluation to assess genetic stability is recommended as a necessary control test to be carried out during extensive 'passaging'. Standard techniques currently used for the cytogenetic assessment of ES cells include G-banding and/or Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH)-based protocols for karyotype analysis, including M-FISH and SKY. Critical for both banding and FISH techniques are the number and quality of metaphase spreads available for analysis at the microscope. Protocols for chromosome preparation from hES and human induced pluripotent stem (hiPS) cells published so far appear to differ considerably from one laboratory to another. Here we present an optimized technique, in which both the number and the quality of chromosome metaphase spreads were substantially improved when compared to current standard techniques for chromosome preparations. We believe our protocol represents a significant advancement in this line of work, and has the required attributes of simplicity and consistency to be widely accepted as a reference method for high quality, fast chromosomal analysis of human ES and iPS cells.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".