MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075297594 · doi:10.1002/jor.20200

Limitations of using aggrecan and type X collagen as markers of chondrogenesis in mesenchymal stem cell differentiation

2006· article· en· W2075297594 on OpenAlexafffund
Fackson Mwale, Dorothy Stachura, Peter J. Roughley, John Antoniou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAO Foundation
KeywordsAggrecanChondrogenesisEndochondral ossificationMesenchymal stem cellType II collagenChondrocyteCell biologyStem cellCartilageChemistryCellular differentiationImmunologyBiologyAnatomyPathologyOsteoarthritisMedicineBiochemistryArticular cartilage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study was initially designed to differentiate human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) into chondrocyte-like cells, for use in tissue engineering. We cultured MSCs in defined chondrogenic medium as pellet cultures supplemented with transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta1 or -beta3 and dexamethazone, as they are commonly used to promote in vitro chondrogenesis. Markers of chondrogenesis used were type II collagen and aggrecan, with type X collagen being used as a marker of late-stage chondrocyte hypertrophy (associated with endochondral ossification). Our results show that aggrecan is constitutively expressed by MSCs and that type X collagen is expressed as an early event. Furthermore, we found that type X collagen was expressed before type II collagen in some cases. This is surprising because it is understood that stem cells have to be differentiated into chondrocytes before they can become hypertrophic. Thus, caution must be exercised when using aggrecan and type X collagen as markers for chondrogenesis and chondrocyte hypertrophy, respectively, in association with stem cell differentiation from this source.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations169
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207