Single Cell Sequencing and Kidney Organoids Generated from Pluripotent Stem Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods to differentiate human pluripotent stem cells into kidney organoids were first introduced about 5 years ago, and since that time, the field has grown substantially. Protocols are producing increasingly complex three-dimensional structures, have been used to model human kidney disease, and have been adapted for high-throughput screening. Over this same time frame, technologies for massively parallel, single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) have matured. Now, both of these powerful approaches are being combined to better understand how kidney organoids can be applied to the understanding of kidney development and disease. There are several reasons why this is a synergistic combination. Kidney organoids are complicated and contain many different cell types of variable maturity. scRNA-seq is an unbiased technology that can comprehensively categorize cell types, making it ideally suited to catalog all cell types present in organoids. These same characteristics also make scRNA-seq a powerful approach for quantitative comparisons between protocols, batches, and pluripotent cell lines as it becomes clear that reproducibility and quality can vary across all three variables. Lineage trajectories can be reconstructed using scRNA-seq data, enabling the rational adjustment of differentiation strategies to promote maturation of desired kidney cell types or inhibit differentiation of undesired off-target cell types. Here, we review the ways that scRNA-seq has been successfully applied in the organoid field and predict future applications for this powerful technique. We also review other developing single-cell technologies and discuss how they may be combined, using "multiomic" approaches, to improve our understanding of kidney organoid differentiation and usefulness in modeling development, disease, and toxicity testing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".