MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183439372

Development of glioblastoma cell lines expressing red fluorescence for non-invasive live imaging of intracranial tumors.

2011· article· en· W2183439372 on OpenAlexaff
Maïté Verreault, Dita Strutt, Dana Masin, David Fink, Ritu R. Gill, Marcel B. Bally

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow cytometryCell culturemCherryBrain tumorTemozolomideCancer researchPathologyU87Fluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyGlioblastomaBiologyLive cell imagingGliomaFluorescenceCellGreen fluorescent proteinMedicineMolecular biology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Glioblastoma (GBM) cell lines expressing red fluorescent proteins were evaluated as a tool for non-invasive imaging of orthotopic tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: mKate2- and mCherry-transduced U251MG GBM lines were sorted by flow cytometry. The growth rates and drug sensitivity of the resulting cell lines were compared to those of the parental line. Following orthotopic implantation, mKate2-expressing cells were detected using multispectral imaging. RESULTS: Flow cytometry-sorted fluorescent populations exhibiting growth curves that were comparable to those of the parental line were selected. mKate2-expressing cells were inoculated orthotopically and formed tumors which were visualized non-invasively, allowing monitoring of tumor growth over time and the assessment of tumor response to temozolomide drug treatment. CONCLUSION: The strategy reported here led to the successful development of GBM models expressing mKate2 or mCherry. The fluorescence signal intensity measured in the brain of live animals correlates with tumor size, thus providing a method to assess tumor progression and response to treatment.

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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCancer Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207