Combinatorial nanodot stripe assay to systematically study cell haptotaxis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Haptotaxis is critical to cell guidance and development and has been studied in vitro using either gradients or stripe assays that present a binary choice between full and zero coverage of a protein cue. However, stripes offer only a choice between extremes, while for gradients, cell receptor saturation, migration history, and directional persistence confound the interpretation of cellular responses. Here, we introduce nanodot stripe assays (NSAs) formed by adjacent stripes of nanodot arrays with different surface coverage. Twenty-one pairwise combinations were designed using 0, 1, 3, 10, 30, 44 and 100% stripes and were patterned with 200 × 200, 400 × 400 or 800 × 800 nm 2 nanodots. We studied the migration choices of C2C12 myoblasts that express neogenin on NSAs (and three-step gradients) of netrin-1. The reference surface between the nanodots was backfilled with a mixture of polyethylene glycol and poly- d -lysine to minimize nonspecific cell response. Unexpectedly, cell response was independent of nanodot size. Relative to a 0% stripe, cells increasingly chose the high-density stripe with up to ~90% of cells on stripes with 10% coverage and higher. Cell preference for higher vs. lower netrin-1 coverage was observed only for coverage ratios >2.3, with cell preference plateauing at ~80% for ratios ≥4. The combinatorial NSA enables quantitative studies of cell haptotaxis over the full range of surface coverages and ratios and provides a means to elucidate haptotactic mechanisms.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it