A biomimetic scaffold for culturing limbal stem cells: a promising alternative for clinical transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limbal tissues can be cultured on various types of scaffolds to create a sheet of limbal-corneal epithelium for research as well as clinical transplantation. An optically clear, biocompatible, biomimetic scaffold would be an ideal replacement graft for transplanting limbal stem cells. In this study, we evaluated the physical and culture characteristics of the recombinant human cross-linked collagen scaffold (RHC-III scaffold) and compared it with denuded human amniotic membrane (HAM). Optical/mechanical properties and microbial susceptibility were measured for the scaffolds. With the approval of the institutional review board, 2 mm fresh human limbal tissues were cultured on 2.5 x 2.5 cm(2) scaffolds in a medium containing autologous serum in a feeder cell-free submerged system. The cultured cell systems were characterized by morphology and immunohistochemistry for putative stem cells and differentiated cell markers. The refractive index (RI) and tensile strength of the RHC-III scaffold were comparable to human cornea, with delayed in vitro degradation compared to HAM. RHC-III scaffolds were 10-fold less susceptible to microbial growth. Cultures were initiated on day 1, expanded to form a monolayer by day 3 and covered the entire growth surface in 10 days. Stratified epithelium on the scaffolds was visualized by transmission electron microscopy. The cultured cells showed p63 and ABCG2 positivity in the basal layer and were immunoreactive for cytokeratin K3 and K12 in the suprabasal layers. RHC-III scaffold supports and retains the growth and stemness of limbal stem cells, in addition to resembling human cornea; thus, it could be a good replacement scaffold for growing cells for clinical transplantation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".