Paracrine Effects of Bone Marrow Soup Restore Organ Function, Regeneration, and Repair in Salivary Glands Damaged by Irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are reports that bone marrow cell (BM) transplants repaired irradiated salivary glands (SGs) and re-established saliva secretion. However, the mechanisms of action behind these reports have not been elucidated. METHODS: To test if a paracrine mechanism was the main effect behind this reported improvement in salivary organ function, whole BM cells were lysed and its soluble intracellular contents (termed as "BM Soup") injected into mice with irradiation-injured SGs. The hypothesis was that BM Soup would protect salivary cells, increase tissue neovascularization, function, and regeneration. Two minor aims were also tested a) comparing two routes of delivering BM Soup, intravenous (I.V.) versus intra-glandular injections, and b) comparing the age of the BM Soup's donors. The treatment-comparison group consisted of irradiated mice receiving injections of living whole BM cells. Control mice received irradiation and injections of saline or sham-irradiation. All mice were followed for 8 weeks post-irradiation. RESULTS: BM Soup restored salivary flow rates to normal levels, protected salivary acinar, ductal, myoepithelial, and progenitor cells, increased cell proliferation and blood vessels, and up-regulated expression of tissue remodeling/repair/regenerative genes (MMP2, CyclinD1, BMP7, EGF, NGF). BM Soup was as an efficient therapeutic agent as injections of live BM cells. Both intra-glandular or I.V. injections of BM Soup, and from both young and older mouse donors were as effective in repairing irradiated SGs. The intra-glandular route reduced injection frequency/dosage by four-fold. CONCLUSION: BM Soup, which contains only the cell by-products, can be advantageously used to repair irradiation-damaged SGs rather than transplanting whole live BM cells which carry the risk of differentiating into unwanted/tumorigenic cell types in SGs.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".