MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084925178 · doi:10.3791/52119

Derivation of T Cells <em>In Vitro</em> from Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells

2014· article· en· W2084925178 on OpenAlexafffund
Martina Kučerová-Levisohn, Jordana Lovett, Armin Lahiji, Roxanne Holmes, Juan Carlos Zúñiga‐Pflücker, Benjamin Ortiz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNew York State Stem Cell Science
KeywordsEmbryonic stem cellHaematopoiesisCell biologyStem cellBiologyProgenitor cellCellular differentiationIn vitroComputational biologyImmunologyComputer scienceGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The OP9/OP9-DL1 co-culture system has become a well-established method for deriving differentiated blood cell types from embryonic and hematopoietic progenitors of both mouse and human origin. It is now used to address a growing variety of complex genetic, cellular and molecular questions related to hematopoiesis, and is at the cutting edge of efforts to translate these basic findings to therapeutic applications. The procedures are straightforward and routinely yield robust results. However, achieving successful hematopoietic differentiation in vitro requires special attention to the details of reagent and cell culture maintenance. Furthermore, the protocol features technique sensitive steps that, while not difficult, take care and practice to master. Here we focus on the procedures for differentiation of T lymphocytes from mouse embryonic stem cells (mESC). We provide a detailed protocol with discussions of the critical steps and parameters that enable reproducibly robust cellular differentiation in vitro. It is in the interest of the field to consider wider adoption of this technology, as it has the potential to reduce animal use, lower the cost and shorten the timelines of both basic and translational experimentation.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.017

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.335 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207