MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415743259 · doi:10.1038/s41536-025-00437-8

Reversion of passaged nucleus pulposus cells to notochordal-type cells by FoxA2 upregulation

2025· article· en· W4415743259 on OpenAlexafffund
Sajjad Ashraf, Aaryn Montgomery-Song, Elana Kotler, Byron Chan, Alena Zelinka, Paul Santerre, Rita A. Kandel

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Regenerative Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSinai Health SystemLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReversionIn vitroIntervertebral discDownregulation and upregulationExtracellular matrixCell cultureIn vivoBrachyuryNucleus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Notochordal cells (NC) have promise as a regenerative therapy for intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration, but their maintenance in culture remains challenging. The study hypothesis is that nucleus pulposus (NP) cells can undergo reversion to NC-type cells through CRISPR/dCas9 activation of FoxA2. Serial passaging of cells isolated from NP shows loss of FoxA2, Brachyury (T), and Noto expression. Transient FoxA2 overexpression increased the levels of NC biomarkers, keratin, CD24, and SHH in passaged cells. So FoxA2-expressing cells were generated using CRISPR/dCas9-SAM. Analysis showed the presence of some vacuolated cells, elevated NC marker expression of Fox A2, Noto, Brachyury, and keratin and improved in vitro NP tissue formation (determined by quantifying proteoglycan content). TGFβ3 treatment enhanced tissue formation. Injected FoxA2-expressing cells survived and produced NP matrix molecules in an ex vivo bovine IVD injury model. The findings suggest FoxA2-expressing NC-type cells can be generated which may have potential to advance cell-based therapies for disc degeneration.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venuenpj Regenerative MedicineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207