In vitro proliferation of Mytilus edulis male germ cell progenitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our understanding of basic cellular processes has mostly been provided by mammalian cell culture, and by some non-mammalian vertebrate and few invertebrate cell culture models. Developing reliable culture conditions for non-model organisms is essential to allow investigation of more unusual cellular processes. Here, we investigate how cells isolated from different tissues of the marine mussel Mytilus edulis thrive and survive in vitro in the hope of establishing a suitable laboratory model for the investigation of cellular mechanisms specific to these bivalve mollusks. We found that cells dissociated from mantle tissue attached to the culture vessels and proliferated well in vitro, whereas cells isolated from gills, although remaining viable, did not maintain divisions over three to four weeks in culture. We used antibodies against the germ-line marker DEAD-box helicase 4 (DDX4), also known as VASA, and the epithelial cell marker cytokeratin to distinguish different cell types in culture. DDX4-positive cells were predominant in 25-day-old cultures from male mantles. Cells from other tissues remained in low numbers and did not seem to change in composition over time. Overall, the culture conditions described here allow an efficient selection of male germ cells that could be used to study specific cellular mechanisms in vitro.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".