MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310774259 · doi:10.1093/stmcls/sxac084

In Reply: Revisiting Claims of the Continued Absence of Functional Germline Stem Cells in Adult Ovaries

2022· letter· en· W4310774259 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Masahito Yoshihara, Magdalena Wagner, Anastasios Damdimopoulos, Cheng Zhao, Sophie Petropoulos, Shintaro Katayama, Juha Kere, Fredrik Lanner, Pauliina Damdimopoulou

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cells · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSigrid Juséliuksen SäätiöAstellas Foundation for Research on Metabolic DisordersVetenskapsrådetSvenska Sällskapet för Medicinsk ForskningSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasAstellas PharmaGreat Britain Sasakawa FoundationJapan Eye Bank AssociationEye Bank Association of America
KeywordsBiologyGermlineStem cellGeneticsCell biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In their Letter to the Editor, Woods and Tilly1 repeat their concerns2 about our research on DDX4 antibody positive cells (DDX4 Ab+) isolated from adult human ovarian cortex.3,4 We show that these cells are perivascular cells instead of so-called oogonial stem cells (OSC), and hence recommend researchers working on the topic to be cautious if following the protocol developed by Tilly and co-workers.5 As we have responded to these concerns previously,6 we will keep our response short. For example, we already extensively addressed the issues related to cell numbers and viability, evolution of bioinformatic tools, and detection of ovarian cell types by scRNA-seq.6 As Woods and Tilly wrote1, there have been 3 clinical trials where women have been subjected to the AUGMENT treatment.7-9 A piece of their ovaries was surgically removed and dissociated into single cells for isolation of DDX4 Ab+ cells. Then, mitochondria were isolated and stored for simultaneous injection with sperm into oocytes collected from the same women during a regular ovarian hyperstimulation cycle.10 As we have previously highlighted, the only blinded randomized controlled trial was terminated prematurely due to a significantly lower rate of blastocyst formation in the AUGMENT therapy group.8 The shortcomings of the other two trials have been raised and discussed elsewhere.8,11 Our studies add concerns about the nature of the DDX4 Ab+ cells that were used for mitochondrial isolation. Our first single-cell transcriptomic analysis of the DDX4 Ab+ cells was published in 2015.4 Among the top genes expressed in the DDX4 Ab+ cells, two well-known perivascular cell markers, ACTA2 and TAGLN, were found.4 Further, we have already shown that these cells keep their perivascular gene expression profile even when cultured for extended time under OSC conditions.3 Hence, in contrast to what Woods and Tilly suggest, the data sets we presented in 2015 and 2020 are not in disagreement with each other but instead unequivocally support our conclusions. Woods and Tilly point to 9 rodent studies as evidence showing that DDX4 Ab+ cell-derived oocytes can give rise to viable offspring. However, the majority of these studies did not use DDX4 Ab for cell isolation from ovaries but rather other markers (Ifitm3) or GFP expression in the germline. When DDX4 Ab was used, the DDX4 Ab+ cells were not been systematically compared to DDX4 Ab− cells, which is troublesome, knowing the unspecific nature of this antibody,3,6 and as such the studies do not help to answer the claims of DDX4 Ab+ cells being germline stem cells. We notice that the hypothesis that Tilly and his co-workers presented earlier regarding accidental sorting of perivascular cells based on autofluorescence in our laboratory2 was not repeated in the current letter,1 suggesting that the new data we presented cleared that concern.6 In closing, the data presented by Woods and Tilly to support the hypothesis that DDX4 Ab+ cells are germline stem cells continue to have significant gaps. Our results demonstrate that the use of the recommended Abcam rabbit polyclonal Ab toward DDX4 for the isolation human of germline stem cells5 instead leads to the isolation of perivascular cells.3,6 As such, we continue to encourage researchers working with the protocol to thoroughly characterize the DDX4 Ab+ cells and their derivatives, with DDX Ab− cells as controls, using single–cell technologies in combination with functional studies. The authors received funding from Astellas Foundation for Research on Metabolic Disorders, Childhood Cancer Fund (PR2020-0096), Horizon 2020 innovation grant (ERIN, grant no. EU952516), Jane & Aatos Erkko Foundation, Japan Eye Bank Association, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Overseas Research Fellowships, Scandinavia-Japan Sasakawa Foundation, Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development FORMAS (2020-01621), Svenska Sällskapet för Medicinsk Forskning (4-236-2107), The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (PJT-178082), and Swedish Research Council (2016-01919, 2020-02132). SP holds the Canada Research Chair in Functional Genomics of Reproduction and Development (950-233204). The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. No new data were generated or analyzed in support of this research.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem CellsSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207