Electrical Stimulation Modulates the Expression of Multiple Wound Healing Genes in Primary Human Dermal Fibroblasts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study profiled multiple human dermal fibroblast wound-healing genes in response to electrical stimulation (ES) by using an RT(2) profiler PCR-Array system. Primary human skin fibroblasts were seeded on heparin (HE)-bioactivated polypyrrole (PPy)/poly(l-lactic acid) (PLLA) conductive membranes, cultured, and subsequently exposed to ES of 50 or 200 mV/mm for 6 h. Following ES, the cells were used to extract RNA for gene profiling, and culture supernatants were used to measure the level of the different wound healing mediators. A total of 57 genes were affected (activated/repressed) by ES; among these, 49 were upregulated and 8 were downregulated. ES intensities at 50 and 200 mV/mm activated/repressed different genes. The ES-modulated genes are involved in cell adhesion, remodeling and spreading, cytoskeletal activity, extracellular matrix metabolism, production of inflammatory cytokines/chemokines and growth factors, as well as signal transduction. The expression of several genes was supported by protein production. Protein analyses showed that ES increased CCL7, KGF, and TIMP2, but reduced MMP2. This study demonstrated that ES modulates the expression of a variety of genes involved in the wound healing process, confirming that ES is a useful tool in regenerative medicine.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it