MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415048602 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013575

Differential equation modeling of cell population dynamics in skeletal muscle regeneration from single-cell transcriptomic data

2025· article· en· W4415048602 on OpenAlexafffund
Renad Al-Ghazawi, Hassan Lezzeik, Xiaojian Shao, Theodore J. Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIn silicoSkeletal musclePopulationRegeneration (biology)CellTranscriptomeMyocyteCell typeModel organism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skeletal muscle regeneration is a complex process orchestrated by diverse cell populations within a dynamic niche. In response to muscle damage and intercellular signaling, these cells undergo cell fate and migration decisions including quiescence, activation, proliferation, differentiation, infiltration, apoptosis, and exfiltration. The emergence of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) studies of muscle regeneration offers a significant opportunity to refine models of regeneration and enhance our understanding of cellular interactions. To better understand how crosstalk between cell types governs cell fate decisions and cell population dynamics, we developed a novel non-linear ordinary differential equation model guided by scRNA-seq data. Our model consists of 9 variables and 17 parameters, capturing the dynamics of key myogenic lineage and immune cell types. We calibrated time-series scRNA-seq data to units of cells per cubic millimeter of tissue and fit our model's parameters to capture the observed dynamics, validating on an independent time series. The model successfully captures key features of regeneration dynamics, particularly after incorporating a novel regulatory interaction between M2 macrophages and satellite cells that has been hypothesized in the literature. Our model lays a foundation for future computational explorations of muscle regeneration, modeling of disease conditions, and in silico testing of therapeutic strategies.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207