MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884406388 · doi:10.1242/dev.150433

On the origin of the human germline

2018· review· en· W2884406388 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Toshihiro Kobayashi, M. Azim Surani

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMedical Research CouncilCancer Research UKAstellas Foundation for Research on Metabolic DisordersMedical Research Council CanadaWellcome Trust
KeywordsBiologyEpiblastGermlineInduced pluripotent stem cellSomatic cellHomeobox protein NANOGEmbryoEmbryonic stem cellGerm cellReprogrammingCell biologyGerm layerGeneticsGeneGastrulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In mice, primordial germ cells (PGCs), the precursors of eggs and sperm, originate from pregastrulation postimplantation embryos. By contrast, the origin of human PGCs (hPGCs) has been less clear and has been difficult to study because of the technical and ethical constraints that limit direct studies on human embryos. In recent years, however, in vitro simulation models using human pluripotent stem cells, together with surrogate non-rodent mammalian embryos, have provided insights and experimental approaches to address this issue. Here, we review these studies, which suggest that the posterior epiblast and/or the nascent amnion in pregastrulation human embryos is a likely source of hPGCs, and that a different gene regulatory network controls PGCs in humans compared with in the mouse. Such studies on the origins and mechanisms of hPGC specification prompt further consideration of the somatic cell fate decisions that occur during early human development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations120
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207