Adhesion Is Prerequisite, But Alone Insufficient, to Elicit Stem Cell Pluripotency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primitive mammalian neural stem cells (NSCs), arising during the earliest stages of embryogenesis, possess pluripotency in embryo chimera assays in contrast to definitive NSCs found in the adult. We hypothesized that adhesive differences determine the association of stem cells with embryonic cells in chimera assays and hence their ability to contribute to later tissues. We show that primitive NSCs and definitive NSCs possess adhesive differences, resulting from differential cadherin expression, that lead to a double dissociation in outcomes after introduction into the early- versus midgestation embryo. Primitive NSCs are able to sort with the cells of the inner cell mass and thus contribute to early embryogenesis, in contrast to definitive NSCs, which cannot. Conversely, primitive NSCs sort away from cells of the embryonic day 9.5 telencephalon and are unable to contribute to neural tissues at midembryogenesis, in contrast to definitive NSCs, which can. Overcoming these adhesive differences by E-cadherin overexpression allows some definitive NSCs to integrate into the inner cell mass but is insufficient to allow them to contribute to later development. These adhesive differences suggest an evolving compartmentalization in multipotent NSCs during development and serve to illustrate the importance of cell-cell association for revealing cellular contribution.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".