Glioblastoma Stem Cells and Comparison of Isolation Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive and the most common primary brain tumor. Over the last few years, studies have identified many genetical and phenotypical molecular situations for developing new treatment modalities in patients with GBM. Nevertheless, main problem for the GBM is radio-chemotherapy resistance and relapse after the surgery. The identification of glioma stem cells and microenvironmental influences has created a paradigm shift in targets of therapy. Current studies have shown that glioma stem cell is responsible for aggressiveness, recurrence and resistance to therapy of GBM. GBM stem cell isolated from human GBM multiforme fresh tissue samples is important both for curative therapeutic options and personalized targeted therapy. The purpose of this study was to determine the most suitable isolation method of GBM stem cells (GSCs). METHODS: Tumor tissue sample was obtained during the surgical resection of lesion in patients with the diagnosis of GBM. Tumor stem cell isolation from tissue was performed in three different ways: 1) GBM cell isolation with trypsin; 2) GBM cell isolation with brain tumor dissociation Kit (BTD Kit); and 3) GBM cell isolation with tumor dissociation enzyme (TDE). RESULTS: We showed that GSCs were isolated from tumor specimen using flow cytometry and immunofluorescence staining. Our study showed that isolation with BTD Kit is the most suitable method to isolate GBM tissue-derived glial tumor stem cells. CONCLUSIONS: The development of alternative personalized therapies targeting brain tumor stem cell is urgently needed. It is important to understand the fundamental mechanisms of driving stem cells. If their life cycle mechanisms can be identified, we can control the growth of GBM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".