MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Designing in vitro tools to pattern gene expression using inducible gene expression

2012· article· en· W3173240380 on OpenAlexaff
Alison P. McGuigan, Sahar Javaherian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene expressionBiologyGeneCell biologyDoxycyclineMorphogenesisRegulation of gene expressionIn vitroCellular differentiationComputational biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early embryogenesis involves the sequential patterning of gene expression in different regions of the developing embryo, with the ultimate purpose of guiding initially identical cells into different paths of differentiation and thus facilitating body part formation and patterning. Being able to reproduce patterns of gene expression that lead to formation of a specific tissue in vitro would be useful both for engineering artificial tissues, and for developing simplified in vitro models to study and define the rules that guide tissue morphogenesis. Here we report a system to pattern gene expression in epithelial sheets using a drug inducible gene expression system. We created a sheet of epithelial cells transduced with a doxycycline inducible lentivirus encoding GFP. We then delivered patterns of doxycycline to the cell sheet to create controlled patterns of GFP expression. We show that the stability of the gene expression patterns in vitro heavily depends on the relationship between the dynamics of the inducible gene expression system and the dynamics of cellular rearrangements. By modeling the system we can predict the conditions that allow stable gene pattern formation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.311
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research→French-language works237,207→