Establishment and characterization of immortalized mouse ameloblast‐like cell lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Enamel organ epithelium (EOE) gives rise to the major epithelial-derived cell types of tooth including the ameloblasts. The formation of enamel, termed amelogenesis, occurs through the cytodifferentiation of ameloblasts, ultimately leading to apoptosis and necrosis of these cells with eruption. Therefore, studies regarding enamel matrix formation and bioengineering have been limited. In this study, we establish and characterize two mouse immortalized ameloblast-like cell lines using human papillomavirus 16 (HPV16) E6/E7 oncogenes for the first time. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two mouse EOE dental cell lines (EOE-2M and EOE-3M). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Isolated EOE primary cells were used to establish clonal cell lines and immortalized using the HPV16 E6/E7 gene platform. Two established cell lines were characterized by growth rate (Cell Proliferation Assay, MTS), gene (quantitative RT-PCR) and protein (immunocytochemistry) expression profiles, and mineralization potential (in situ alkaline phosphatase (ALP) histochemistry and Xylene Orange staining) in media supplemented with ascorbic acid and β-glycerophosphate. Gene and protein expression analyses included specific enamel matrix and ameloblast cell markers: Amel, Ambn, Enam, Amtn, ODAM, MMP20, Krt14 and DLX3. RESULTS: Both cell lines were maintained in excess of 30 passages, with EOE-3M cells proliferating at a slightly higher rate. The cell lines expressed all tested enamel matrix markers and produced a mineralized ECM demonstrating an ameloblast-like profile. CONCLUSIONS: Two mouse ameloblasts-like immortalized cell lines have been characterized that will be useful tool for studies regarding enamel bioengineering.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".