Cell-matrix Interactions of Factor IX (FIX)-engineered human mesenchymal stromal cells encapsulated in RGD-alginate vs. Fibrinogen-alginate microcapsules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of cell microencapsulation technology in tissue engineering and protein delivery applications depends on the viability and functionality of the encapsulated cells, which in turn are dependent upon cell/matrix interactions. In this work, we compared the viability of cord blood-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (CB MSCs), engineered to secrete factor IX (FIX) for hemophilia treatment, and encapsulated in arginine-glycine-aspartate (RGD)-alginate versus fibrinogen-alginate microcapsules. We evaluated the effect of the biomimetic matrix on cell attachment, proliferation, and secretion of FIX. Compared with nonsupplemented alginate matrix, RGD-alginate significantly enhanced the viability of the encapsulated MSCs. Further, cells in RGD-alginate displayed distinct attachment morphology, thus suggesting that RGD-alginate can potentially be used for the encapsulation of MSCs in tissue engineering applications that require enhanced cell attachment and viability. However, our data also showed that RGD-alginate microcapsules, in contrast to fibrinogen-alginate microcapsules, did not significantly improve cell proliferation of or FIX secretion by encapsulated MSCs. Our findings suggest that evidence of cell attachment alone may not accurately predict the functionality of cells in biomimetic microcapsules.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".