MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3076375642 · doi:10.1101/2020.08.19.257923

Prom1 expression does not mark a stem/progenitor population in the mouse oviduct epithelium

2020· preprint· en· W3076375642 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Ford, Yojiro Yamanaka

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOviductStem cellBiologyCell biologyProgenitor cellPopulationAmpullaEpitheliumEmbryonic stem cellProgenitorImmunologyEndocrinologyGeneticsAnatomyGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The oviduct or fallopian tube is the site of fertilization and preimplantation embryonic development. The epithelium lining the oviduct consists of multiciliated and secretory cells, which support fertilization and preimplantation development, however, its homeostasis still remains poorly understood. CD133/ Prom1 has been used to identify adult stem cell populations in various organs and often associated with cancer stem cell property. Using a Cre-recombinase based lineage tracing strategy, we found that CD133/ Prom1 expression was not associated with a stem/progenitor population in the oviduct but marked a sub population of multiciliated and secretory cells which did not propagate. Interestingly, Prom1 expressing secretory cells rapidly transition to multiciliated cells and progressively migrate to the tips of epithelial folds in the ampulla. Our results show that CD133/ Prom1 expression cannot be used as a progenitor/stem cell marker in the mouse oviduct.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207