Enhanced chondrocyte proliferation and mesenchymal stromal cells chondrogenesis in coculture pellets mediate improved cartilage formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we aimed at investigating the interactions between primary chondrocytes and mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSC) accounting for improved chondrogenesis in coculture systems. Expanded MSC from human bone marrow (BM-MSC) or adipose tissue (AT-MSC) were cultured in pellets alone (monoculture) or with primary human chondrocytes from articular (AC) or nasal (NC) cartilage (coculture). In order to determine the reached cell number and phenotype, selected pellets were generated by combining: (i) human BM-MSC with bovine AC, (ii) BM-MSC from HLA-A2+ with AC from HLA-A2- donors, or (iii) human green fluorescent protein transduced BM-MSC with AC. Human BM-MSC and AC were also cultured separately in transwells. Resulting tissues and/or isolated cells were assessed immunohistologically, biochemically, cytofluorimetrically, and by RT-PCR. Coculture of NC or AC (25%) with BM-MSC or AT-MSC (75%) in pellets resulted in up to 1.6-fold higher glycosaminoglycan content than what would be expected based on the relative percentages of the different cell types. This effect was not observed in the transwell model. BM-MSC decreased in number (about fivefold) over time and, if cocultured with chondrocytes, increased type II collagen and decreased type X collagen expression. Instead, AC increased in number (4.2-fold) if cocultured with BM-MSC and maintained a differentiated phenotype. Chondro-induction in MSC-chondrocyte coculture is a robust process mediated by two concomitant effects: MSC-induced chondrocyte proliferation and chondrocyte-enhanced MSC chondrogenesis. The identified interactions between progenitor and mature cell populations may lead to the efficient use of freshly harvested chondrocytes for ex vivo cartilage engineering or in situ cartilage repair.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".