Exogenous OCT4 and SOX2 Contribution to In Vitro Reprogramming in Cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanisms of cell reprogramming by pluripotency-related transcription factors or nuclear transfer seem to be mediated by similar pathways, and the study of the contribution of OCT4 and SOX2 in both processes may help elucidate the mechanisms responsible for pluripotency. Bovine fibroblasts expressing exogenous OCT4 or SOX2, or both, were analyzed regarding the expression of pluripotency factors and imprinted genes H19 and IGF2R, and used for in vitro reprogramming. The expression of the H19 gene was increased in the control sorted group, and putative iPSC-like cells were obtained when cells were not submitted to cell sorting. When sorted cells expressing OCT4, SOX2, or none (control) were used as donor cells for somatic cell nuclear transfer, fusion rates were 60.0% vs. 64.95% and 70.53% vs. 67.24% for SOX2 vs. control and OCT4 vs. control groups, respectively; cleavage rates were 66.66% vs. 81.68% and 86.47% vs. 85.18%, respectively; blastocyst rates were 33.05% vs. 44.15% and 52.06% vs. 44.78%, respectively. These results show that the production of embryos by NT resulted in similar rates of in vitro developmental competence compared to control cells regardless of different profiles of pluripotency-related gene expression presented by donor cells; however, induced reprogramming was compromised after cell sorting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".