MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902937707 · doi:10.1071/rdv31n1ab128

128 Next-generation RNA sequencing of horse adipose and endometrial mesenchymal stem cells from the same donors unveils striking differences in their transcriptomic pattern

2018· article· en· W2902937707 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Felipe Navarrete, E. Mellisho, Y. Wang, J. Cabezas, L. Rodríguez-Álvarez, Arcadi Navarro, F. Saravia, Fidel Ovídio Castro

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMesenchymal stem cellGeneTranscriptomeRNARNA-SeqGenomeGene expressionRNA extractionComputational biologyGeneticsMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earlier we successfully isolated and characterised endometrial (eMSC) and adipose (aMSC) mesenchymal stem cells from the same donors. Mesenchymal stem cells share biological traits but display different surface marker phenotype and migration ability. Here we extended our research to their mRNA signature using next-generation sequencing. The RNA from cells (3 biological replicates from each cell type and 3 technical replicates) at 90% confluence was extracted using a total RNA extraction kit and sent for mRNA-Seq (Norgen, Ontario, Canada; Illumina Sequencing Platform NextSEqn 500). Raw 76-bp single-end reads were aligned against the EquCab3 genome using RNA-STAR aligner. Counts were filtrated at a minimum of 5. Pairwise comparisons between the cell types were the input for gene ontology enrichment analysis. Only genes differentially expressed (DE) with 5 folds change (FC; P < 0.05) were analysed. For DE analysis, eMSC were set as control and compared with aMSC. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the global gene expression signatures was done to compare the samples from each line using principal component analysis (PCA) and EdgeR: v3.20.9. Gene expression was normalized using FPKM. The heat map was built using R studio with G-plot package. A total of 14,896 transcripts with at least 5 reads were found; of these, 1598 were DE: 627 up-regulated (FC range: 2 to 236×) and 971 down-regulated (FC range: 2 to 464×) in eMSC. There was a marked dispersion in the FC of up- and down-regulated genes (>50×: 8 and 13; >20×, <50×: 9 and 17; >10×, <20×: 29 and 63; >5×, <10×: 91 and 130 and >2×, <5×: 490 and 748, respectively). Only genes DE with FC at least 5× were used for gene ontology and PCA analysis. Though 14,058 genes were common to both cell types, specific set of genes were found only in eMSC (n = 162) or aMSC (n = 676). Among the top 50 genes overexpressed in eMSC, several genes key for stem cell growth, immune response, migration and angiogenesis were found: TRIL, CXCL8, PDGF-D, SEMA5A, PTGS2, FGD, LAMA2, IL36G. In the top 50 down-regulated genes, some pivotal for osteoblast, adipogenic and neural differentiation were dramatically down-regulated (GPM6B, SCARA5 and NOTCH3 or NEFM, respectively), but no genes involved in immune rejection or stem cell proliferation were found. In gene ontology, the categories represented the most were cellular, developmental, metabolic, and immune system processes, as well as biological regulation, response to stimuli, organellar biogenesis, locomotion, localization and biological adhesion. Heat map and PCA analysis showed that one individual cell line from each type diverged markedly from the shared pattern. Individual variability of the donors may impinge upon the results; nevertheless, striking differences in the mRNA portfolio of eMSC and aMSC were detected. The importance and potential biological role of several of the genes and processes named above will be discussed in detail elsewhere. This work was supported by grant FONDECYT REGULAR 1150757 and the Government of Chile.

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 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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.185 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207