Effect of Different Factors on Proliferation of Antler Cells, Cultured In Vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antlers as a potential model for bone growth and development have become an object of rising interest. To elucidate processes explaining how antler growth is regulated, in vitro cultures have been established. However, until now, there has been no standard method to cultivate antler cells and in vitro results are often opposite to those reported in vivo. In addition, many factors which are often not taken into account under in vitro conditions may play an important role in the development of antler cells. In this study we investigated the effects of the antler growth stage, the male individuality, passaged versus primary cultures and the effect of foetal calf serum concentrations on proliferative potential of mixed antler cell cultures in vitro, derived from regenerating antlers of red deer males (Cervus elaphus). The proliferation potential of antler cells was measured by incorporation of (3)H thymidine. Our results demonstrate that there is no significant effect of the antler growth stage, whereas male individuality and all other examined factors significantly affected antler cell proliferation. Furthermore, our results suggest that primary cultures may better represent in vivo conditions and processes occurring in regenerating antlers. In conclusion, before all main factors affecting antler cell proliferation in vitro will be satisfactorily investigated, results of in vitro studies focused on hormonal regulation of antler growth should be taken with extreme caution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".