MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In Utero Transplantation of Stem Cells to the Yolk Sac of Early to Mid Gestation Canine Fetuses.

2006· article· en· W2574148738 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea K. Vaags, Cathy Gartley, Warren D. Foltz, Krista B. Halling, Howard Dobson, Alexander Dick, Stephen A. Kruth, Margaret R. Hough

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan and Tissue Transplantation Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYolk sacFetusTransplantationIn uteroStem cellBone marrowAndrologyTransplacentalMedicinePathologyBiologyPregnancyInternal medicinePlacentaEmbryo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In utero stem cell therapy holds promise for the amelioration of disorders before birth. Futhermore, due to the preimmune state of the developing fetus, recipients do not reject allogeneic cell transplants and postnatal transplantation from the same donor may be possible without the need for anti-rejection drugs. In order to more fully establish the feasibility of in utero cell transplantation, we are developing a canine model through the injection of allogeneic cells to the yolk sac of day 25 or day 35 fetuses. Cell tracking was facilitated by labeling male canine cells with micron-sized superparamagnetic and fluorescent polystyrene beads. Both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and fluorescence imaging were employed to assess the fetal distribution of transplanted cells. Total bone marrow was harvested from adult canine donors and processed for bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMC). Marrow stromal cell (MSC) cultures were initiated from BMMC on the basis of plastic adherence. Both MSC and BMMC were labeled for 16 hours with fluorescent superparamagnetic beads. Five pregnancies have been studied, wherein 1–2 x 106 MSC or 0.1 – 1 x 107 BMMC were delivered to individual yolk sacs of day 25 (n=13) or day 35 (n=14) fetuses under ultrasound guidance. Each pregnancy included 1–2 fetuses that received an equal volume saline injection (n=7). Fetuses were allowed to develop in vivo for an additional seven to fourteen days at which time ovariohysterectomy and fetal retrieval were performed. Dispersion of the injected cells within each fetus prevented conclusive detection of labeled cell distribution by MRI (~3mm3 volume elements, 1.5 Tesla GE Signa). Ex vivo whole body fluorescence imaging of fetuses verified cell migration from the yolk sac injection site to the fetus proper based on increased levels of green fluorescence in injected versus noninjected controls. The signal was predominantly localized to the thoracic and abdominal regions, with no apparent fluorescence visible in the yolk sac. To asses donor cell engraftment, sagittal-plane cryosections were analyzed by fluorescence microscopy for detection of the fluorophore as well as Prussian blue staining for detection of superparamagnetic iron particles via light microscopy. The localization of iron particles and fluorescence label was co-registered on images taken from sequential cryosections. These analyses indicated that labeled BMMC and MSC migrated from the yolk sac to the fetal liver. Furthermore, molecular confirmation of donor cell engraftment in the livers of female fetuses was obtained after manual micro-dissection of fetal livers from day 32 fetuses or after laser capture of iron labeled cells from day 43–45 fetuses. Y chromosome positive cells were detected in fetuses receiving either male MSC or BMMC, but not in saline control injected fetuses. Our studies demonstrated that injection of cells into the yolk sac during early fetal gestation is an effective strategy to deliver cells to the developing fetus. We are currently following in utero transplant recipients to determine whether long-term engraftment and immunotolerance of donor cells during the neonatal period can be achieved.

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 score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicOrgan and Tissue Transplantation ResearchFrench-language works237,207