Single-fiber isolation and maintenance of satellite cell quiescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The activity of satellite cells during myogenesis, development, or skeletal muscle regeneration is strongly modelled using cultures of single muscle fibers. However, there are variations in reported features of gene or protein expression as examined with single-fiber cultures. Here, we examined the potential differences in activation of satellite cells on normal mouse muscle fibers produced during a standard isolation protocol, with or without agitation during collagenase digestion. Activation was detected in satellite cells on fibers after 24 and 48 h of culture in basal growth medium using immunodetection of the incorporation of bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) into DNA and quantification of the number of BrdU-positive cells per fiber. After 24 and 48 h in culture under nonactivating conditions, the number of activated (BrdU+) satellite cells was greater on fibers that had received gentle agitation during collagenase digestion than on those that were subject to digestion without agitation during isolation. The findings are interpreted to mean that at least some of the variation among published reports may derive from the application of various methods of fiber isolation. The information should be useful for maintaining satellite cell quiescence during studies of the regulatory steps that lead to satellite cell activation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".