CentTracker: a trainable, machine learning-based tool for large-scale analyses of <i>C. elegans</i> germline stem cell mitosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Investigating the complex interactions between stem cells and their native environment requires an efficient means to image them in situ . Caenorhabditis elegans germline stem cells (GSCs) are distinctly accessible for intravital imaging; however, long-term image acquisition and analysis of dividing GSCs can be technically challenging. Here we present a systematic investigation into the technical factors impacting GSC physiology during live imaging and provide an optimized method for monitoring GSC mitosis under minimally disruptive conditions. We describe CentTracker, an automated and generalizable image analysis tool that uses machine learning to pair mitotic centrosomes and which can extract a variety of mitotic parameters rapidly from large-scale datasets. We employ CentTracker to assess a range of mitotic features in GSCs and show that subpopulations with distinct mitotic profiles are unlikely to exist within the stem cell pool. We further find evidence for spatial clustering of GSC mitoses within the germline tissue and for biases in mitotic spindle orientation relative to the germline’s distal-proximal axis, and thus the niche. The technical and analytical tools provided herein pave the way for large-scale screening studies of multiple mitotic processes in GSCs dividing in situ , in an intact tissue, in a living animal, under seemingly physiological conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".