MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172727295 · doi:10.1089/153623003769645866

Growth Restricted <i>In Vitro</i> Culture Conditions Alter the Imprinted Gene Expression Patterns of Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells

2003· article· en· W2172727295 on OpenAlexaff
Senan Baqir, Lawrence C. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCloning and Stem Cells · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenomic imprintingReprogrammingEpigeneticsEmbryonic stem cellDNA methylationCell biologyGene expressionGeneRegulation of gene expressionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Embryonic stem (ES) cell-derived clones and chimeras are often associated with growth abnormalities during fetal development, leading to the production of over/under-weight offspring that show elevated neonatal mortality and morbidity. Due to the role played by imprinted genes in controlling fetal growth, much of the blame is pointed at improper epigenetic reprogramming of cells used in the procedures. We have analyzed the expression pattern of two growth regulatory imprinted genes, namely insulin like growth factor II (Igf2) and H19, in mouse ES cells cultured under growth restricted conditions and after in vitro aging. Culture of cells with serum-depleted media (starvation) and at high cell density (confluence) increased the expression of both imprinted genes and led to aberrant methylation profiles of differentially methylated regions in key regulatory sites of Igf2 and H19. These findings confirm that growth constrained cultures of ES cells are associated with alterations to methylation of the regulatory domains and the expression patterns of imprinted genes, suggesting a possible role of epigenetic factors in the loss of developmental potential.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCloning and Stem CellsSame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207