MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099355497 · doi:10.1139/z05-188

Biology of the Porifera: cell culture

2006· article· en· W2099355497 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shirley A. Pomponi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyOrganismSpongeModel organismCell biologyComputational biologyCell cultureDevelopmental biologySystems biologyCellGeneBiochemistryGeneticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The discovery that dissociated sponge cells will reaggregate to form a functional organism was the basis for the establishment of sponge cell cultures that have been used as a model for the study of fundamental processes in developmental biology and immunology. More recent is the discovery of unique bioactive compounds in marine sponges, and the feasibility of in vitro production of these chemicals is being evaluated. Techniques are well established for cell dissociation; development of several nutrient media formulations has resulted in improvements in viability and cell division; and molecular approaches to identification of genes responsible for regulation of cell cycling may provide unique perspectives in culture optimization. The use of novel substrates for immobilization of cells offers alternatives for proliferation and scale-up. All of these results support the potential for development of a model system for the study of basic metabolic processes involved in cell differentiation, as well as an in vitro production system for sponge-derived bioactive compounds. Perhaps more important, however, is the development of cell lines of these "simple" metazoans to facilitate basic cell physiology and molecular biology research that may be applied to understanding more complex metazoan systems, including humans.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations46
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207