Gene expression profiles reveal that chondrogenic progenitor cells and synovial cells are closely related
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We showed previously that chondrogenic progenitor cells (CPCs) from the superficial zone of articular cartilage respond vigorously to cartilage wounding by responding chemotactically to cell debris, but the physiologic functions of CPCs remain unclear. To help bridge this knowledge gap we undertook a comparative analysis of gene expression in bovine CPCs, chondrocytes, synovial fibroblasts (synoviocytes), and cells isolated from synovial fluid (SFCs). Analysis of microarrays parsed the four cell types into two distinct groups, one composed only of chondrocytes and the other of CPCs, synoviocytes, and SFCs. The groups differed with respect to metalloendopeptidase, collagen, and cytokine gene expression. Quantitative PCR showed that, relative to chondrocytes, all other cells under-expressed cartilage matrix genes. CPCs significantly over-expressed genes encoding the chemokines interleukin 8 (IL8), and C-C motif ligand 2, while synoviocytes over-expressed the chemokine C-X-C motif Ligand 12. Sulfated glycosaminoglycan deposition in pellet cultures by CPCs was intermediate between chondrocytes and synoviocytes/SFCs. These results indicate that the CPC phenotype more closely resembles synoviocytes and SFCs than chondrocytes. CPCs show a tendency to over-express chemokines that promote immune cell chemotaxis, suggesting they mediate inflammation in response to cartilage wounding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".