Incorporation of Genetically Modified Cells in Chicken Chimeras
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The production and study of transgenic mice has proven invaluable in dissecting the complex genetic regulatory events that control mammalian development. Although the chick embryo is a classic model system in developmental biology, its scope is limited by the inability to routinely and efficiently produce transgenic birds. One proposed strategy toward accessing the avian genome is the use of transgenic chimeric intermediates. As described in Chapter 37, dispersed chicken blastodermal cells (CBCs) from stage X (E-G&K) (1) embryos produce both somatic and germline chimeras when injected into the subgerminal cavity of recipient stage X (E-G&K) embryos. Transfection of the donor cells in vitro could lead to the production of chimeras capable of transmitting the transgene to their offspring. Avian transgenesis through chimeric intermediates is theoretically sound because CBCs can be efficiently transfected using both lipofection and electroporation and both lipofected and electroporated CBCs are capable of contributing to somatic and germline lineages (2-5). Transfection using liposome reagents has the disadvantages of requiring extended incubations and optimization of DNA/lipid ratios for each construct used. Although electroporation requires access to relatively expensive equipment, it is a rapid, physical method that may have fewer adverse effects on the pluripotentiality of transfected CBCs. Therefore, both transfection protocols are described in this chapter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".