MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085037298 · doi:10.1039/c4bm00237g

Topographically grooved gel inserts for aligning epithelial cells during air–liquid-interface culture

2014· article· en· W2085037298 on OpenAlexafffund
John P. Soleas, Thomas K. Waddell, Alison P. McGuigan

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomaterials Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalToronto Public Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInterface (matter)Liquid airLiquid cultureChemistryLiquid mediumChromatographyMaterials scienceBiophysicsBiologyBiochemistryBotanyOrganic chemistryPulmonary surfactant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epithelial tissues are a critical component of all tubular organs. Engineering artificial epithelium requires an understanding of the polarization of epithelia: both apicobasal and in a planar fashion. Air liquid interface (ALI) culture is typically used to generate apicobasal polarized airway epithelium in vitro; however, this approach does not provide any signalling cues to induce morphological planar polarization of the generated epithelial layer. Here we describe a microgrooved gelatin hydrogel insert that can induce alignment of confluent epithelial cell sheets under ALI conditions to induce both apicobasal and morphologically planar polarized epithelium. Microgrooves are imprinted into the surface of the gelatin insert using elastomeric stamps moulded from a diffraction grating film and gels are stabilized by crosslinking with glutaraldehyde. We show that microgrooved gelatin inserts produce alignment of 3T3 fibroblasts and a number of epithelial cell lines (ARPE-19, BEAS2B and IMCD3 cells). Furthermore, we show that BEAS2B apicobasally polarize and form a similar density of cilia on both gelatin inserts and standard transwell filters used for ALI culture but that as apicobasal polarization progresses cell alignment on the grooves is lost. Our method provides a simple strategy that can easily be adopted by labs without microfabrication expertise for manipulating epithelial organization in transwell culture and studying the interplay of various polarization forces.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomaterials ScienceSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207