MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771140957 · doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.10.022

Generation of Induced Progenitor-like Cells from Mature Epithelial Cells Using Interrupted Reprogramming

2017· article· en· W2771140957 on OpenAlexafffund
Li Guo, Golnaz Karoubi, Pascal Duchesneau, Maria V. Shutova, Hoon‐Ki Sung, Peter J. Tonge, Christine E. Bear, Ian M. Rogers, András Nagy, Thomas K. Waddell

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cell Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReprogrammingBiologyProgenitor cellKLF4SOX2Cell biologyInduced pluripotent stem cellStem cellPopulationProgenitorCellular differentiationImmunologyEmbryonic stem cellCellGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A suitable source of progenitor cells is required to attenuate disease or affect cure. We present an "interrupted reprogramming" strategy to generate "induced progenitor-like (iPL) cells" using carefully timed expression of induced pluripotent stem cell reprogramming factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc; OSKM) from non-proliferative Club cells. Interrupted reprogramming allowed controlled expansion yet preservation of lineage commitment. Under clonogenic conditions, iPL cells expanded and functioned as a bronchiolar progenitor-like population to generate mature Club cells, mucin-producing goblet cells, and cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR)-expressing ciliated epithelium. In vivo, iPL cells can repopulate CFTR-deficient epithelium. This interrupted reprogramming process could be metronomically applied to achieve controlled progenitor-like proliferation. By carefully controlling the duration of expression of OSKM, iPL cells do not become pluripotent, and they maintain their memory of origin and retain their ability to efficiently return to their original phenotype. A generic technique to produce highly specified populations may have significant implications for regenerative medicine.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
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

Citations35
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cell ReportsSame topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207