MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523549519 · doi:10.3791/54308

Aggregate Size Optimization in Microwells for Suspension-based Cardiac Differentiation of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells

2016· article· en· W2523549519 on OpenAlexafffund
Céline L. Bauwens, Derek Toms, Mark Ungrin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsInduced pluripotent stem cellSuspension cultureSuspension (topology)Aggregate (composite)Embryonic stem cellCell biologyCellular differentiationBiologyBiological systemBiomedical engineeringCell cultureMaterials scienceNanotechnologyMathematicsMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac differentiation of human pluripotent stems cells (hPSCs) is typically carried out in suspension cell aggregates. Conventional aggregate formation of hPSCs involves dissociating cell colonies into smaller clumps, with size control of the clumps crudely controlled by pipetting the cell suspension until the desired clump size is achieved. One of the main challenges of conventional aggregate-based cardiac differentiation of hPSCs is that culture heterogeneity and spatial disorganization lead to variable and inefficient cardiomyocyte yield. We and others have previously reported that human embryonic stem cell (hESC) aggregate size can be modulated to optimize cardiac induction efficiency. We have addressed this challenge by employing a scalable, microwell-based approach to control physical parameters of aggregate formation, specifically aggregate size and shape. The method we describe here consists of forced aggregation of defined hPSC numbers in microwells, and the subsequent culture of these aggregates in conditions that direct cardiac induction. This protocol can be readily scaled depending on the size and number of wells used. Using this method, we can consistently achieve culture outputs with cardiomyocyte frequencies greater than 70%.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207