MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phenotypic comparison of periodontal ligament cells <i>in vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i>

2001· article· en· W2069385352 on OpenAlexaff
P. Lekic, José M. Rojas, Catalena Birek, Howard C. Tenenbaum, C McCulloch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Periodontal Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriodontal fiberBone sialoproteinIn vivoOsteopontinDental alveolusIn vitroBiologyConnective tissueMolarCellPathologyAlkaline phosphataseChemistryCell biologyImmunologyMedicineDentistryOsteocalcinBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mammalian periodontal ligament contains heterogeneous populations of connective tissue cells, the precise function of which is poorly understood. Despite close proximity to bone and the application of high amplitude physical forces, cells in the periodontal ligament (PL) are capable of expressing regulatory factors that maintain PL width during adult life. The study of PL homeostasis and PL cell differentiation requires culture and phenotypic methods for precise characterization of PL cell populations, in particular those cells with an inherently osteogenic program. Currently it is unknown if cells cultured from the PL are phenotypically similar to the parental cells that are present in the tissues. We have compared the phenotype of cells in vivo with cells derived from the PL and expanded in vitro to assess the general validity of in vitro models for the study of phenotypic regulation in vivo. Rat PL cells were isolated by either scraping the root of the extracted first mandibular molars (Group A), or by scraping the alveolar socket following extraction of first mandibular molars (Group B), or by obtaining a mixture of cells after disaggregating a block of tissue consisting of first mandibular molar, PL and the surrounding alveolar bone (Group C). Cultured cells at confluence were fixed and immunostained for alpha-smooth muscle actin (alpha-SMA), osteopontin (OPN), alkaline phosphatase (AP), or bone sialoprotein (BSP). For in vivo assessments, frontal sections of rat first mandibular molar were immunostained for alpha-SMA, OPN, AP and BSP. We examined osteogenic differentiation of cultured PL cell cultures by bone nodule-forming assays. In vivo and at all examined sites, > 68% of PL cells were immunostained for AP; approximately 50% and approximately 51% for OPN and alpha-SMA (p = 0.3), respectively, while only approximately 8% were positively stained for BSP (p < 0.01). Analysis of cultured PL cells in Groups A, B and C showed 54%, 53%, and 56% positive staining for alpha-SMA respectively; 51%, 56%, 54% for OPN; 66%, 70%, 69% for AP and 2.2%, 1.4% and 2.8% for BSP. The mean percentage of PL cells in situ stained for the different markers was similar to that of cultured PL cells (Group A approximately Group B approximately Group C in situ for p > 0.2) except for BSP which was 3 to 4 fold higher in vitro (p < 0.01). PL cell cultures treated with dexamethasone showed mineralized tissue formation for all groups (A, B, C), but no mineralized tissue formation was detected in the absence of dexamethasone. As PL cells express quantitatively similar phenotypes in vitro and in vivo, we conclude that the in vitro models used here for assessment of PL cell differentiation appear to be appropriate and are independent of the cell sampling method. Further, dexamethasone-dependent progenitors are present both on the root and bone-related sides of the PL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.337
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations134
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Periodontal ResearchSame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207