MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797559883 · doi:10.3727/096368916x692852

Establishment and Characterization of Immortalized Minipig Neural Stem Cell Line

2016· article· en· W2797559883 on OpenAlexaff
Sung Sik Choi, Seung‐Bin Yoon, Sang‐Rae Lee, Sun-Uk Kim, Young Joo, Daniel Lee, Seung Up Kim, Kyu‐Tae Chang, Hong J. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Transplantation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeural stem cellImmortalised cell lineStem cellBiologySOX2Cell cultureNestinEmbryonic stem cellCell biologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the increasing importance of minipigs in biomedical research, there has been relatively little research concerning minipig-derived adult stem cells as a promising research tool that could be used to develop stem cell-based therapies. We first generated immortalized neural stem cells (iNSCs) from primary minipig olfactory bulb cells (pmpOBCs) and defined the characteristics of the cell line. Primary neural cells were prepared from minipig neonate olfactory bulbs and immortalized by infection with retrovirus carrying the v-myc gene. The minipig iNSCs (mpiNSCs) had normal karyotypes and expressed NSC-specific markers, including nestin, vimentin, Musashi1, and SOX2, suggesting a similarity to human NSCs. On the basis of the global gene expression profiles from the microarray analysis, neurogenesis-associated transcript levels were predominantly altered in mpiNSCs compared with pmpOBCs. These findings increase our understanding of minipig stem cells and contribute to the utility of mpiNSCs as resources for immortalized stem cell experiments.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell TransplantationSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207