MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042154144 · doi:10.1139/bcb-2014-0140

Optimization of treatment with recombinant FGF-2 for proliferation and differentiation of human dental stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells, and osteoblasts

2015· article· en· W2042154144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tae‐Hyung Lee, Won‐Tae Kim, Chun Jeih Ryu, Young‐Joo Jang

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStem cellMesenchymal stem cellDental pulp stem cellsCell biologyProgenitor cellBasic fibroblast growth factorFibroblast growth factorBiologyAdult stem cellEmbryonic stem cellStem cell transplantation for articular cartilage repairAmniotic stem cellsPopulationPeriodontal fiberImmunologyGrowth factorMedicineDentistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF or FGF-2) is widely used to modulate the proliferation and differentiation of certain cell types. An expression and purification system for recombinant human FGF-2 in Escherichia coli was established for the purpose of securing a continuous supply of this protein. The purified recombinant FGF-2 significantly increased the population of human embryonic stem cells. The optimal concentrations of FGF-2 for cell proliferative induction in various adult stem cells including human dental pulp stem cells, full term human periodontal ligament stem cells, human gingival fibroblasts, mesenchymal stem cells, and osteogenic oseosarcoma were established in a dose-dependent manner. When cells were treated with recombinant FGF-2 for 6 days before osteogenic induction, the mRNA expression of the bone markers was upregulated in cells originated from human dental pulp tissue, indicating that pretreatment with FGF-2 during culture increase stem cell/progenitor population and osteogenic potential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207