<i>In situ</i>cell–matrix mechanics in tendon fascicles and seeded collagen gels: implications for the multiscale design of biomaterials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing biomaterials to mimic and function within the complex mechanobiological conditions of connective tissues requires a detailed understanding of the micromechanical environment of the cell. The objective of our study was to measure the in situ cell-matrix strains from applied tension in both tendon fascicles and cell-seeded type I collagen scaffolds using laser scanning confocal microscopy techniques. Tendon fascicles and collagen gels were fluorescently labelled to simultaneously visualise the extracellular matrix and cell nuclei under applied tensile strains of 5%. There were significant differences observed in the micromechanics at the cell-matrix scale suggesting that the type I collagen scaffold did not replicate the pattern of native tendon strains. In particular, although the overall in situ tensile strains in the matrix were quite similar (∼2.5%) between the tendon fascicles and the collagen scaffolds, there were significant differences at the cell-matrix boundary with visible shear across cell nuclei of >1 μm measured in native tendon which was not observed at all in the collagen scaffolds. Similarly, there was significant non-uniformity of intercellular strains with relative sliding observed between cell rows in tendon which again was not observed in the collagen scaffolds where the strain environment was much more uniform. If the native micromechanical environment is not replicated in biomaterial scaffolds, then the cells may receive incorrect or mixed mechanical signals which could affect their biosynthetic response to mechanical load in tissue engineering applications. This study highlights the importance of considering the microscale mechanics in the design of biomaterial scaffolds and the need to incorporate such features in computational models of connective tissues.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".