MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905106087 · doi:10.1002/cpsc.75

Combinatorial Utilization of Murine Embryonic Stem Cells and <i>In Vivo</i> Models to Study Human Congenital Heart Disease

2018· article· en· W2905106087 on OpenAlexafffund
Abeer Zakariyah, Rashida Rajgara, Michael Shelton, Alexandre Blais, Ilona S. Skerjanc, Patrick G. Burgon

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Stem Cell Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsEmbryonic stem cellBiologyStem cellIn vivoCell biologyEmbryonic heartDiseaseImmunologyGeneticsPathologyGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have established an in vitro model of the human congenital heart defect (CHD)–associated mutation NKX2.5 R141C . We describe the use of the hanging drop method to differentiate Nkx2.5 R141C/+ murine embryonic stem cells (mESCs) along with Nkx2.5 +/+ control cells. This method allows us to recapitulate the early stages of embryonic heart development in tissue culture. We also use qRT‐PCR and immunofluorescence to examine samples at different time points during differentiation to validate our data. The in vivo model is a mouse line with a knock‐in of the same mutation. We describe the isolation of RNA from embryonic day 8.5 (E8.5) embryos and E9.5 hearts of wild‐type and mutant mice. We found that the in vitro model shows reduced cardiomyogenesis, similar to Nkx2.5 R141C/+ embryos at E8.5, indicating a transient loss of cardiomyogenesis at this time point. These results suggest that our in vitro model can be used to study very early changes in heart development that cause CHD. © 2018 by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc.

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)0.000
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Protocols in Stem Cell BiologySame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207