TEM, SEM, and STEM-based immuno-CLEM workflows offer complementary advantages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying endogenous tissue stem cells remains a key challenge in developmental and regenerative biology. To distinguish and molecularly characterise stem cell populations in large heterogeneous tissues, the combination of cytochemical cell markers with ultrastructural morphology is highly beneficial. Here, we realise this through workflows of multi-resolution immuno-correlative light and electron microscopy (iCLEM) methodologies. Taking advantage of the antigenicity preservation of the Tokuyasu technique, we have established robust protocols and workflows and provide a side-by-side comparison of iCLEM used in combination with scanning EM (SEM), scanning TEM (STEM), or transmission EM (TEM). Evaluation of the applications and advantages of each method highlights their practicality for the identification, quantification, and characterization of heterogeneous cell populations in small organisms, organs, or tissues in healthy and diseased states. The iCLEM techniques are broadly applicable and can use either genetically encoded or cytochemical markers on plant, animal and human tissues. We demonstrate how these protocols are particularly suited for investigating neural stem and progenitor cell populations of the vertebrate nervous system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".