MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091661269 · doi:10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.205

Culture of feline corneal epithelial cells and infection with feline herpesvirus-1 as an investigative tool

2005· article· en· W2091661269 on OpenAlexaff
Lynne S Sandmeyer, Charlotte Keller, Dorothee Bienzle

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Veterinary Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytokeratinStromaIn vitroCATSBiologyEpitheliumCorneaKeratinCorneal epitheliumCell culturePopulationPathologyVirologyMedicineImmunologyImmunohistochemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To isolate and characterize pure cultures of feline corneal epithelial cells and to assess the extent and nature of feline herpesvirus (FHV)-1 infection in these cells. SAMPLE POPULATION: Healthy eyes from 23 recently euthanatized cats. PROCEDURE: Stroma and epithelium of the rostral portion of the cornea were surgically isolated, and epithelial cells were detached from the stroma by enzymatic incubation. Epithelial cells were cultured in hormone-supplemented media. Cells were passaged, and cytokeratin expression was assessed. Cells were then infected with FHV-1, and cytopathic effects were determined. RESULTS: Cell cultures were readily established from samples obtained from each eye and could be maintained through 6 passages. Cultured cells expressed cytokeratins 3 and 12 but not other cytokeratins. Infection with FHV-1 was rapid and caused widespread cytopathic effects. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Feline corneal cells cultured in vitro during multiple passages maintain consistent morphologic characteristics and intermediate filament expression. They are susceptible to infection with FHV-1 and may provide a useful in vitro model for investigation of ocular drugs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Veterinary ResearchSame topicHerpesvirus Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207