Asymmetric BMP4 signalling improves the realism of kidney organoids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a strategy for increasing the anatomical realism of organoids by applying asymmetric cues to mimic spatial information that is present in natural embryonic development, and demonstrate it using mouse kidney organoids. Existing methods for making kidney organoids in mice yield developing nephrons arranged around a symmetrical collecting duct tree that has no ureter. We use transplant experiments to demonstrate plasticity in the fate choice between collecting duct and ureter, and show that an environment rich in BMP4 promotes differentiation of early collecting ducts into uroplakin-positive, unbranched, ureter-like epithelial tubules. Further, we show that application of BMP4-releasing beads in one place in an organoid can break the symmetry of the system, causing a nearby collecting duct to develop into a uroplakin-positive, broad, unbranched, ureter-like 'trunk' from one end of which true collecting duct branches radiate and induce nephron development in an arrangement similar to natural kidneys. The idea of using local symmetry-breaking cues to improve the realism of organoids may have applications to organoid systems other than the kidney.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".