Osteogenic Response of C2C12 Cells on Thermoreversible Polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs) in combination with biomaterials are being explored for clinical bone regeneration. The current biomaterials used for BMPs delivery are not specifically designed to support BMP‐induced osteogenesis. Towards this goal, we designed synthetic N‐isopropylacrylamide (NiPAM)‐based thermosensitive polymers and investigated their ability to support osteogenic transformation of pluripotent C2C12 cells. Cell attachment to the polymers was limited as compared to attachment to the plastic surfaces optimized for cell culture. Short‐term (<7 days) studies indicated relatively little cell growth on the polymer surfaces. However, C2C12 cells retained their ability to respond to BMP‐2, as determined by alkaline phosphatase (ALP) induction, when cultured on thermoreversible polymers. Some polymers supported ALP induction that was far superior (∼10‐fold) to cells grown on tissue culture surfaces. We conclude that thermosensitive polymers, although limited in their ability to support cell attachment and growth, did support the pluripotent cells' ability to be transformed under the influence of BMP‐2. The ALP induction was dependent on the compositional details of the polymers, suggesting that in vivo osteoinduction was likely to be influenced by the physicochemical properties of the polymers.
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 | 0.000 | 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".