Single cell dynamics of embryonic muscle progenitor cells in zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Muscle stem cells hold a great therapeutic potential in regenerating damaged muscles. However, the in vivo behavior of muscle stem cells during muscle growth and regeneration is still poorly understood. Using zebrafish as a model, we describe the in vivo dynamics and function of embryonic muscle progenitor cells (MPCs) in the dermomyotome. These cells are located in a superficial layer external to muscle fibers and express many extracellular matrix (ECM) genes, including collagen type 1 α2 (col1a2). Utilizing a new col1a2 transgenic line, we show that col1a2+ MPCs display a ramified morphology with dynamic cellular processes. Cell lineage tracing demonstrates that col1a2+ MPCs contribute to new myofibers in normal muscle growth and also during muscle regeneration. A combination of live imaging and single cell clonal analysis reveals a highly choreographed process of muscle regeneration. Activated col1a2+ MPCs change from the quiescent ramified morphology to a polarized and elongated morphology, generating daughter cells that fuse with existing myofibers. Partial depletion of col1a2+ MPCs severely compromises muscle regeneration. Our work provides a dynamic view of embryonic muscle progenitor cells during zebrafish muscle growth and regeneration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".