Analysis of Green Fluorescent Protein Expression in Transgenic Rats for Tracking Transplanted Neural Stem/Progenitor Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Green fluorescent protein (GFP) expression was evaluated in tissues of different transgenic rodents--Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat strain [SD-Tg(GFP)Bal], W rat strain [Wistar-TgN(CAG-GFP)184ys], and M mouse strain [Tg(GFPU)5Nagy/J]--by direct fluorescence of native GFP expression and by immunohistochemistry. The constitutively expressing GFP transgenic strains showed tissue-specific differences in GFP expression, and GFP immunohistochemistry amplified the fluorescent signal. The fluorescence of stem/progenitor cells cultured as neurospheres from the ependymal region of the adult spinal cord from the GFP SD and W rat strains was assessed in vitro. After transplantation of the cells into wild-type spinal cord, the ability to track the grafted cells was evaluated in vivo. Cultured stem/progenitor cells from the SD strain required GFP immunostaining to be visualized. Likewise, after transplantation of SD cells into the spinal cord, immunohistochemical amplification of the GFP signal was required for detection. In contrast, GFP expression of stem/progenitor cells generated from the W strain was readily detected by direct fluorescence both in vitro and in vivo without the need for immunohistochemical amplification. The cultured stem/progenitor cells transplanted into the spinal cord survived for at least 49 days after transplantation, and continued to express GFP, demonstrating stable expression of the GFP transgene in vivo.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".