Differences between the Cell Populations from the Peritenon and the Tendon Core with Regard to Their Potential Implication in Tendon Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of intrinsic and extrinsic healing in injured tendons is still debated. In this study, we characterized cell plasticity, proliferative capacity, and migration characteristics as proxy measures of healing potential in cells derived from the peritenon (extrinsic healing) and compared these to cells from the tendon core (intrinsic healing). Both cell populations were extracted from horse superficial digital flexor tendon and characterized for tenogenic and matrix remodeling markers as well as for rates of migration and replication. Furthermore, colony-forming unit assays, multipotency assays, and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses of markers of osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation after culture in induction media were performed. Finally, cellular capacity for differentiation towards a myofibroblastic phenotype was assessed. Our results demonstrate that both tendon- and peritenon-derived cell populations are capable of adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation, with higher expression of progenitor cell markers in peritenon cells. Cells from the peritenon also migrated faster, replicate more quickly, and show higher differentiation potential toward a myofibroblastic phenotype when compared to cells from the tendon core. Based on these data, we suggest that cells from the peritenon have substantial potential to influence tendon-healing outcome, warranting further scrutiny of their role.
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".