MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200928356 · doi:10.1126/science.abg5159

Reversible reprogramming of cardiomyocytes to a fetal state drives heart regeneration in mice

2021· article· en· W3200928356 on OpenAlexaff
Yanpu Chen, Felipe F. Lüttmann, Eric Schoger, Hans R. Schöler, Laura C. Zelarayán, Kee-Pyo Kim, Jody J. Haigh, Johnny Kim, Thomas Braun

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReprogrammingKLF4BiologyCell biologySOX2Regeneration (biology)CellEmbryonic stem cellGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiomyocyte (CM) replacement is very slow in adult mammalian hearts, preventing regeneration of damaged myocardium. By contrast, fetal hearts display considerable regenerative potential owing to the presence of less mature CMs that still have the ability to proliferate. In this study, we demonstrate that heart-specific expression of Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc (OSKM) induces adult CMs to dedifferentiate, conferring regenerative capacity to adult hearts. Transient, CM-specific expression of OSKM extends the regenerative window for postnatal mouse hearts and induces a gene expression program in adult CMs that resembles that of fetal CMs. Extended expression of OSKM in CMs leads to cellular reprogramming and heart tumor formation. Short-term OSKM expression before and during myocardial infarction ameliorates myocardial damage and improves cardiac function, demonstrating that temporally controlled dedifferentiation and reprogramming enable cell cycle reentry of mammalian CMs and facilitate heart regeneration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
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

Citations299
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207