MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158093231 · doi:10.1071/an12012

Factors affecting the number of STRO-1+ stem cells derived from regenerating antler and pedicle cells of red and fallow deer

2012· article· en· W2158093231 on OpenAlexaff
Erika Kužmová, Radim Kotrba, Hans J. Rolf, Luděk Bartoš, G. Wiese, Jutta Schulz, George A. Bubenik

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Production Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCell sortingAntlerStem cellAndrologyAnimal scienceCell cultureCellImmunologyCell biologyEcologyBiochemistryMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mesenchymal stem cells positive to surface antigen STRO-1 were isolated from regenerating antlers of red deer (Cervus elaphus) and fallow deer (Dama dama) using a magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) method. In this study we analysed factors potentially affecting the number of STRO-1+ cells in the cell cultures. With regard to the STRO-1 antigen, we evaluated data from 188 MACS separation procedures of cell cultures cultivated in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium and 10% fetal calf serum of four fallow deer males (130 procedures) and four red deer males (58 procedures). The analysed factors were the sampling site of the antler or the pedicle, cell passage and type of the cell culture (mixed or STRO-1 negative cell cultures). The percentage of obtained STRO-1+ cells varied greatly from 0.4 to 38.9% for fallow deer and from 1.8 to 16.5% for red deer. We have not found any significant influence of the sampling site. The passage and the type of culture were significant factors for both fallow and red deer cells. The highest numbers of STRO-1+ cells were obtained from the second passage from both fallow and red deer cell cultures (24.6 and 5.5%, respectively). Our experiment revealed that we can maximise the number of STRO-1+ cells in the cultures by manipulating the cultivation factors.

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 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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Production ScienceSame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207