In Vitro Models for Glaucoma Research: Effects of Hydrostatic Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The response of cells (e.g., optic nerve head [ONH] cells) to mechanical stress is important in glaucoma. Studies have reported the biological effects of hydrostatic pressure on ONH cells cultured on a rigid substrate. An apparatus, designed to independently vary hydrostatic pressure and gas tension (including oxygen tension) in culture medium, was used to evaluate the effects of pressure and tension on cell migration, shape, and α-tubulin architecture in a transformed cell line (DITNC1 rat cortical astrocytes). METHODS: During the assay period, cells were exposed to one of four experimental configurations: (1) control pressure and control gas tension; (2) high-pressure (7.4 mm Hg) and reduced gas tension; (3) control pressure and reduced gas tension; and (4) high-pressure and control gas tension. RESULTS: Calculations suggested that the cells in configurations 2 and 3 were hypoxic, as confirmed by direct measurements in configuration 2. No effects of hydrostatic pressure were observed on cell migration or α-tubulin architecture. However, cells cultured under low gas tension (configurations 2 and 3) showed increased migration at 48 and 72 hours (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A hydrostatic pressure of 7.4 mm Hg has no effect on DITNC1 astrocytes cultured on rigid coverslips, whereas hypoxia associated with a fluid column creating this pressure does. These results differ from those in a previous report, the results of which may be explained by altered gas tensions in the culture medium. Steps are recommended for control of secondary effects when testing the effect of pressure on cultured cells.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".