Mast cells can regulate skeletal muscle cell proliferation by multiple mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mast cells (MCs) can stimulate cell proliferation, but their specific contribution to skeletal muscle regeneration is not well defined. METHODS: L6 myoblast proliferation was assessed in coculture with MCs or when grown with MC-conditioned media. To address the in vivo implication of MCs in regeneration, rats were treated with cromolyn, and myoblast proliferation, immune cell accumulation, and myogenic factors were assessed in bupivacaine-injured muscles. RESULTS: In vitro, both procedures increased the L6 cell proliferation rate, and this was tryptase-dependent. In vivo, MC stabilization increased myoblast proliferation and accumulation of macrophages CD68 and CD163 after injury. This correlated with a sequential increase in MyoD and myogenin protein level expression. CONCLUSIONS: MCs can directly stimulate muscle cell proliferation via tryptase. MCs can influence myoblast proliferation in vivo, but this effect seems to be predominantly related to their modulation of macrophage recruitment. The MC is a potential actor in the early stages of muscle healing.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".