MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The potential for complete automated scoring of the cytokinesis block micronucleus cytome assay using imaging flow cytometry

2018· review· en· W2800582026 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew A. Rodrigues, Lindsay A. Beaton-Green, Ruth C. Wilkins, Michael Fenech

Bibliographic record

VenueMutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicronucleusFlow cytometryMicronucleus testCytometryBiologyNocodazoleBinucleated cellsPopulationMitosisCytoplasmCytokinesisCell biologyMolecular biologyChemistryCellCell divisionGeneticsCytoskeletonMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lymphocyte Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus (CBMN) assay was originally developed for the measurement of micronuclei (MN) exclusively in binucleated (BN) cells, which represent the population of cells that can express MN because they completed nuclear division. Recently the assay has evolved into a comprehensive cytome method to include biomarkers that measure chromosomal instability and cytotoxicity by quantification of nuclear buds (NBUDs), nucleoplasmic bridges (NPBs) and apoptotic/necrotic cells. Furthermore, enumeration of mono- and polynucleated cells allows for computation of the nuclear division index (NDI) to assess mitotic activity. Typically performed by manual microscopy, the CBMN cytome assay is laborious and subject to scorer bias and fatigue, leading to inter- and intra-scorer variability. Automated microscopy and conventional flow cytometry methods have been developed to automate scoring of the traditional and cytome versions of the assay. However, these methods have several limitations including the requirement to create high-quality microscope slides, lack of staining consistency and sub-optimal nuclear/cytoplasmic visualization. In the case of flow cytometry, stripping of the cytoplasmic membrane makes it impossible to measure MN in BN cells, calculate the NDI or to quantify apoptotic or necrotic cells. Moreover, the absence of cellular visualization using conventional flow cytometry, makes it impossible to quantify NBUDs and NPBs. In this review, we propose that imaging flow cytometry (IFC), which combines high resolution microscopy with flow cytometry, may overcome these limitations. We demonstrate that by using IFC, images from cells in suspension can be captured, removing the need for microscope slides and allowing visualization of intact cytoplasmic membranes and DNA content. Thus, mono-, bi- and polynucleated cells with and without MN can be rapidly and automatically identified and quantified. Finally, we present high-resolution cell images containing NBUDs and NPBs, illustrating that IFC possesses the potential for completely automated scoring of all components of the CBMN cytome assay.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations75
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental MutagenesisSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207