MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2360358567

Culture and Cryopreservation of Fibroblasts from Sheep Skin Tissue Stored at 4

2007· article· en· W2360358567 on OpenAlexaff
AN Tie-zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueSichuan dongwu · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubculture (biology)CryopreservationAndrologyFetal bovine serumPrimary cultureTissue cultureFibroblastBiologyCell cultureEmbryoImmunologyPathologyMolecular biologyCell biologyIn vitroMedicineBiochemistryMicrobiologyGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was carried out to investigate whether the skin fibroblasts from the dying rare animals could be utilized as donor cells in somatic cell nuclear transfer for the production of cloned mammals.The skin tissues from auricle of young sheep were collected and preserved in mPBS at 4℃ for 0 hour(as control),24 hours,48 hours or 72 hours respectively,then processed primary culture in DMEM(Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium) including glutamine and FBS(fetal bovine serum).After the primarily cultured cells reached to 85% confluence,they were subcultured directly or were frozen-thawed and then subcultured.The results showed that:(1) after stored at 4℃,the skin fibroblast in primary culture reached to 85% confluence requiring more times(8~15 d)than control group(4 d);(2) after subcultured 4 times,the fibroblasts from samples stored at 4 ℃ grew to 85% confluence requiring identical time to those from control samples;(3) although the frozen-thawed cells from different groups in the first subculture reached to 85% confluence in disparate time(11~13 d),all the cells in the second subculture grew to 85% confluence after 4 days.All these results indicated that if the skin tissues were soon collected and kept in mPBS at 4℃ for several hours once the animal died,the skin fibroblasts could have resumed growing after primary culture and subculture or primary culture and frozen-thawed,then subculture.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSichuan dongwuSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207