MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045596375 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107963

Expansion of Human iPSC-Derived Ureteric Bud Organoids with Repeated Branching Potential

2020· article· en· W3045596375 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shin-Ichi Mae, Makoto Ryosaka, Satoko Sakamoto, Kyoko Matsuse, Aya Nozaki, Maiko Igami, Ryotaro Kabai, Akira Watanabe, Kenji Osafune

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceResearch Center Network for Realization of Regenerative MedicineOtsuka PharmaceuticalKyoto UniversityCanadian Internet Registration AuthorityJapan Agency for Medical Research and Development
KeywordsOrganoidUreteric budBranching (polymer chemistry)BiologyCell biologyChemistryGeneticsEmbryonic stem cellGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ureteric bud (UB) is the embryonic kidney progenitor tissue that gives rise to the collecting duct and lower urinary tract. UB-like structures generated from human pluripotent stem cells by previously reported methods show limited developmental ability and limited branching. Here we report a method to generate UB organoids that possess epithelial polarity and tubular lumen and repeat branching morphogenesis. We also succeed in monitoring UB tip cells by utilizing the ability of tip cells to uptake very-low-density lipoprotein, cryopreserving UB progenitor cells, and expanding UB tip cells that can reconstitute the organoids and differentiate into collecting duct progenitors. Moreover, we successfully reproduce some phenotypes of multicystic dysplastic kidney (MCDK) using the UB organoids. These methods will help elucidate the developmental mechanisms of UB branching and develop a selective differentiation method for collecting duct cells, contributing to the creation of disease models for congenital renal abnormalities.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations104
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207