MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302981273 · doi:10.1093/jnen/59.3.197

Myoblast Transplantation in Whole Muscle of Nonhuman Primates

2000· article· en· W2302981273 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Skuk, M Goulet, Brigitte Roy, Jacques P. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsMyocyteImmunosuppressionBicepsTransplantationMyoglobinuriaToxicityHyperkalemiaMyogenesisMedicineBiologyAnatomyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of the present study was to determine the feasibility, success, and toxicity of myoblast transplantation (MT) in the whole muscle of primates. Allogenic myoblasts transduced with the beta-galactosidase (beta-Gal) gene were transplanted in the whole Biceps brachii of 5 monkeys immunosuppressed with FK506. Myoblast injections were spaced at every 1 to 1.5 mm in 7 muscles, as well as at every 5 mm in 2 muscles. Myoblasts were resuspended in HBSS, notexin 1 microg/ml or notexin 5 microg/ml. Depending on the number of beta-Gal labeled myoblasts and the injection protocol, biopsies of transplanted muscles exhibited 7% to 74% beta-Gal+ fibers 1 month after MT. Beta-Gal+ fibers were present in muscle biopsies made 3, 8, and 12 months after MT. Myoglobinuria and hyperkalemia, the risk factors after extensive muscle damage and notexin toxicity, were not observed. The withdrawal of immunosuppression led to histological evidences of cellular rejection of the graft. We concluded that MT can be successfully performed in large primate muscles without toxicity due to muscle damage. An effective immunosuppression allowed the maintenance of beta-Gal+ fibers up to 1 year after MT. These results suggest parameters that may allow effective MT in humans.

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 score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations84
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuropathology & Experimental NeurologySame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207