Genetic Analysis of the Clonal Origin of Regenerating Mouse Spermatogenesis Following Transplantation1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spermatogonial transplantation provides a straightforward approach to quantify spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs). Because donor-derived spermatogenesis is regenerated in the form of distinct colonies, the number of functional SSCs can be obtained by simply counting the number of colonies established in recipient testes. However, this approach is legitimate only when one colony arises from one stem cell (one colony-one stem cell hypothesis). In this study, we evaluated the validity of this hypothesis. Two populations of donor cells were obtained from the testes of two transgenic mouse lines and mixed at a 1:1 ratio. Following transplantation of the cell mixture, donor-derived colonies were visualized and individually excised, and genomic DNA was extracted from each colony. Based on unique marker genes of the two transgenic lines, the genotype of the cells contained in a colony was examined by polymerase chain reaction. A colony was determined to be clonal when only one transgene was detected. The results showed that 100% and 90% of colonies were clonal when <5 and 19 colonies were formed per recipient testis, respectively. However, the clonality of colonies decreased as the colony number per recipient testis or the length of each colony increased. These results support the one colony-one stem cell hypothesis and demonstrate that spermatogonial transplantation provides a highly quantitative assay for SSCs; however, these conclusions are applicable under a defined transplantation condition.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".