MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154684060 · doi:10.1089/cell.2020.0075

Investigating Markers of Reprogramming Potential in Somatic Cell Lines Derived from Matched Donors

2021· article· en· W3154684060 on OpenAlexaff
Tahmineh Toorani, Paula M. Mackie, Gabriela F. Mastromonaco

Bibliographic record

VenueCellular Reprogramming · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsToronto ZooUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReprogrammingSomatic cell nuclear transferBiologyInduced pluripotent stem cellSomatic cellEpigeneticsGeneticsEmbryonic stem cellCell cultureStem cellCell biologyCellEmbryoGeneBlastocystEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Somatic cell biobanking and related technologies, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), and induction of pluripotent stem cells offer significant promise for wildlife conservation, but have yet to achieve optimal success. Inefficiency and variability in outcome have been linked to incomplete nuclear reprogramming, highlighting the importance of donor cell contribution. Studies show significant differences in SCNT outcome in donor cell lines within and between individuals, highlighting the necessity for a standardized characterization method to evaluate cell line reprogramming potential. Stringently standardized bovine fibroblast cell lines were generated and assessed for inter- and intraindividual variability on cellular (morphology, chromosome number, apoptotic incidence; Experiment 1) and molecular (pluripotency and epigenetic-related gene expression; Experiment 2) levels encompassing putative biomarkers of reprogramming potential. Cellular parameters were similar across cell lines. While some statistically significant differences were observed in DNMT1, DNMT3B, and HAT1, but not HDAC1, their biological relevance could not be determined with the information at hand. This study lays the foundation for understanding cellular characteristics in cultured cell lines; however, further studies are required to determine any correlation with reprogramming potential.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellular ReprogrammingSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207