MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015557934 · doi:10.1039/c9lc01230c

Selective cell propagation <i>via</i> micropatterning of a thermally-activated hydrogel

2020· article· en· W3015557934 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey Chiu, Joyce A. Teodoro, Jeong Hyun Lee, Kerryn Matthews, Simon P. Duffy, Hongshen Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueLab on a Chip · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalVancouver Biotech (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMicropatterningMaterials scienceChemistryNanotechnologyBiophysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to selectively propagate specific cells is fundamentally important to the development of clonal cell populations. Current methods rely on techniques such as limiting dilution, colony picking, and flow cytometry to transfer single cells into single wells, resulting in workflows that are low-throughput, slowed by propagation kinetics, and susceptible to contamination. Here, we developed a method, called selective laser gelation (SLG), to micropattern hydrogels in cell culture media in order to encapsulate specific cells to selectively arrest their growth. This process relies on the inverse gelation of methylcellulose, which forms a hydrogel when heated rather than cooled. Local heating using an infrared laser enables hydrogel micropatterning, while phase transition hysteresis retains the hydrogel after laser excitation. As a demonstration, we used this approach to selectively propagate transgenic CHO cells with increased antibody productivity. More generally, hydrogel micropatterning provides a simple and non-contact method for selective propagation of cells based on features identified by imaging.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLab on a ChipSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207