PPy-coated PET fabrics and electric pulse-stimulated fibroblasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inherent in biological systems, the electrical field is involved in regulation of many physiological processes. Exogenous electrical stimulation has been used to modulate cellular activity and enhance wound healing. In this study, electrically conductive polypyrrole (PPy) was synthesised through a two-step method and subsequently used to cover the surface of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fabric microfibres which were used to investigate the effect of electrical pulse on human skin fibroblasts. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) revealed a very thin, uniform PPy coating on the PET microfibres, which was supported by a surface chemical analysis by X-ray photoelectron spectrometry (XPS). An Instron machine, a thermogravimetric analyser (TGA), and a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) were used to analyse the mechanical and thermal properties of the fabrics, which showed no significant change following treatment with PPy. The average surface and bulk electrical resistivity of these fabrics were measured to be 63 kΩ per square and 138 ohm m, respectively. The bulk resistivity increased to 213 ohm m after 24 h pre-incubation in cell culture medium, and then increased by another 22% following a pulsed electrical stimulation protocol in cell culture medium for additional 24 h. Human skin fibroblasts were seeded on the PPy-coated PET fabrics and cultivated thereafter with or without pulsed electrical stimulation (P-ES). P-ES was found to enhance fibroblast proliferation, as confirmed by MTT and Hoechst staining. These findings demonstrate that P-ES is effective in promoting fibroblast growth. It also shows that PPy-coated PET fabrics are electrically stable enough to mediate sufficient P-ES. This study therefore lays the groundwork for the use of PPy-coated fabrics to mediate ES in biomedical research.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".