Extracellular matrix deposition by fibroblasts is necessary to promote capillary‐like tube formation in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contribution of the cellular and fibrillar microenvironment to angiogenesis still remains unclear. Our purpose was to evaluate the effect of the extracellular matrix deposited by fibroblasts on the capacity of human endothelial cells to form capillaries in vitro. We have drastically decreased the amount of extracellular matrix surrounding fibroblasts in our model of endothelialized-reconstructed connective tissue (ERCT) by culturing it without ascorbate. Under these conditions, the number of capillary-like tubes (CLT) formed by endothelial cells was reduced by up to 10-fold after 31 days of culture compared to controls. This decrease was due neither to a variation of MMP-2 and MMP-9 secretion, nor to a reduction in the number of fibroblasts and/or endothelial cells, or a diminution of fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) synthesis. The secretion of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) by fibroblasts accounted for 25-70% of the capillary-like tube formation when tissues were cultured in the presence or absence of ascorbate, as demonstrated by VEGF-blocking studies. The culture of endothelial cells on a similar extracellular matrix but in the absence of living fibroblasts did not promote the formation of CLT, even when tissues were fed with fibroblast-conditioned medium. Thus, the deposition of a rich extracellular matrix by living fibroblasts appeared necessary, but not sufficient to promote capillary-like formation. Fibroblasts seem to induce endothelial cells to spontaneously form CLT by secreting and organizing an abundant extracellular matrix, which creates a microenvironment around cells that could in turn trap growth factors produced by fibroblasts and promote three-dimensional cell organization.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".