MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146399757 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.113.110544

Gonocytes, from the Fifties to the Present: Is There a Reason to Change the Name?1

2013· review· en· W2146399757 on OpenAlexaff
Martine Culty

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGonocyteBiologyMitosisFetusCell biologyGerm cellBasement membraneDNA methylationGene expressionGeneticsAndrologyGenePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically, the precursor cells to spermatogonia have been identified as "gonocytes," a term created in the fifties to encompass fetal and neonatal germ cells from the time they become resident in testis primordia to the time they relocate at the basement membrane of the seminiferous cords and differentiate. During this period, spreading over several days in rodents and months in humans, germ cell morphology and central location within the cords remain relatively unchanged. Another common trait is the intensive DNA methylation taking place in fetal to neonatal gonocytes. It is only when they reach the periphery of the cords after birth that germ cells acquire the characteristic appearance of spermatogonia. Studies showed that fetal and neonatal germ cells undergo progressive developmental changes comprising three major phases, a fetal mitotic phase followed by a quiescent period during which most of DNA methylation occurs and a neonatal mitotic phase associated with migration to the basement membrane, morphological changes, and differentiation to spermatogonia. Efforts to associate a distinctive gene expression profile to each of these phases have failed, revealing instead gradual changes in gene and protein expression and the coexistence within each period of unsynchronized cells at different phases of development. In the seventies, the terms pre- or prospermatogonia appeared as alternatives for the term gonocytes, but the definition of these terminologies varied between studies. Thus far, the term gonocyte remains the most commonly used, corresponding to a specific location of the cells, morphological appearance, and functional traits, which are distinct from the prior and subsequent developmental phases. In view of the present knowledge, one could further distinguish gonocyte subsets by the prefixes M, Q, and T, describing, respectively, fetal mitotic, quiescent, and transitional neonatal mitotic/migratory gonocytes, in conjunction with emerging methods allowing better discrimination of these subsets.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations93
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207