Reassessing the genetic lineage tracing of lingual <i> Lgr5 <sup>+</sup> </i> and <i> Lgr6 <sup>+</sup> </i> cells <i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taste buds, the neuroepithelial organs responsible for the detection of gustatory stimuli in the oral cavity, arise from stem/progenitor cells among nearby basal keratinocytes. Using genetic lineage tracing, Lgr5 and Lgr6 were suggested as the specific markers for the stem/progenitor cells of taste buds, but recent evidence implied that taste buds may arise even in the absence of these markers. Thus, we wanted to verify the genetic lineage tracing of lingual Lgr5- and Lgr6-expressing cells. Unexpectedly, we found that antibody staining revealed more diverse Lgr5-expressing cells inside and outside the taste buds of circumvallate papillae than was previously suggested. We also found that, while tamoxifen-induced genetic recombination occurred only in cells expressing the Lgr5 reporter GFP, we did not see any increase in the number of recombined daughter cells induced by consecutive injections of tamoxifen. Similarly, we found that cells expressing Lgr6, another stem/progenitor cell marker candidate and an analog of Lgr5, also do not generate recombined clones. In contrast, Lgr5-expressing cells in fungiform papillae can transform into Lgr5-negative progeny. Together, our data indicate that lingual Lgr5- and Lgr6-expressing cells exhibit diversity in their capacity to transform into Lgr5- and Lgr6-negative cells, depending on their location. Our results complement previous findings that did not distinguish this diversity.
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".