Intercellular Interactions, Position, and Polarity in Establishing Blastocyst Cell Lineages and Embryonic Axes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formation of the three lineages of the mouse blastocyst provides a powerful model system to study interactions among cell behavior, cell signaling, and lineage development. Hippo signaling differences between the inner and outer cells of the early cleavage stages, combined with establishment of a stably polarized outer epithelium, lead to the establishment of the inner cell mass and the trophectoderm, whereas FGF signaling differences among the individual cells of the ICM lead to gradual separation and segregation of the epiblast and primitive endoderm lineages. Events in the late blastocyst lead to the formation of a special subset of cells from the primitive endoderm that are key sources for the signals that establish the subsequent body axis. The slow pace of mouse early development, the ability to culture embryos over this time period, the increasing availability of live cell imaging tools, and the ability to modify gene expression at will are providing increasing insights into the cell biology of early cell fate decisions. Outline 1 Introduction 2 Lineage specification in the blastocyst: Transcriptional network control 3 The relationship between morphogenesis, cell signaling, and lineage allocation in the preimplantation embryo 4 Relationship of cell fates and the architecture of the blastocyst with the patterning of the postimplantation embryo 5 Conclusions and future directions
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".