Effects of Incubation Time and Method of Cell Cycle Synchronization on Collared Peccary Skin-Derived Fibroblast Cell Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The success of cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer depends on the efficiency of nuclear reprogramming, with the cycle stage of the donor cell playing a crucial role. Therefore, the aim was to evaluate three different approaches for cell cycle synchronization: (i) serum starvation (SS) for 1 to 4 days, (ii) contact inhibition (CI) for 1 to 3 days, and (iii) using cell cycle regulatory inhibitors (dimethyl sulfoxide, cycloheximide, cytochalasin B, or 6-dimethylaminopurine) for 1 and 2 days, in terms of their effects on synchronization in G 0 /G 1 phases and viability of collared peccary skin fibroblasts. Flow cytometry analysis revealed that SS for 4 days (79.0% ± 1.6) and CI for 3 days (78.0% ± 1.4) increased the percentage of fibroblasts in G 0 /G 1 compared to growing cells GC (68.1% ± 8.6). However, SS for 3 and 4 days reduced the viability evaluated by differential staining (81.4% ± 0.03 and 81.6% ± 0.06) compared to growing cells (GC, 95.9% ± 0.06). CI did not affect the viability at any of the analyzed time intervals. No cell cycle inhibitors promoted synchronization in G 0 /G 1 . These results indicate that CI for 3 days was the most efficient method for cell cycle synchronization in peccary fibroblasts.
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) | 0.001 | 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".