MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213296315 · doi:10.1101/2022.02.15.480596

Recombinant production of growth factors for application in cell culture

2022· preprint· en· W4213296315 on OpenAlexaff
Meenakshi Venkatesan, Cameron Semper, Rosa DiLeo, Nathalie Mesa, P.J. Stogios, Alexei Savchenko

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecombinant DNACell growthCell cultureCell biologyBiotechnologyProduction costGrowth factorProduction (economics)BiologyEscherichia coliCellComputational biologyBiochemistryGeneticsEngineeringGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Culturing eukaryotic cells has widespread applications in research and industry, including the emerging field of cell-cultured meat production colloquially referred to as “cellular agriculture”. These applications are often restricted by the high cost of growth medium necessary for cell growth. Mitogenic protein growth factors (GFs) are essential components of growth medium and account for upwards of 90% of the total costs. Here, we present a set of expression constructs and a simplified protocol for recombinant production of functionally active GFs, including FGF-2, IGF-1, PDGF-BB and TGF-β1 in Escherichia coli . Using this expression system, we produced soluble GFs from species including bovine, chicken, and fish. Bioactivity analysis revealed orthologs with improved performance compared to commercially available alternatives. We estimated that the production cost of GFs using our methodology will significantly reduce the cost of cell culture medium, facilitating low-cost protocols tailored for cultured meat production and tissue engineering.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207