Characterization and osteogenic potential of equine muscle tissue– and periosteal tissue–derived mesenchymal stem cells in comparison with bone marrow– and adipose tissue–derived mesenchymal stem cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize equine muscle tissue- and periosteal tissue-derived cells as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and assess their proliferation capacity and osteogenic potential in comparison with bone marrow- and adipose tissue-derived MSCs. SAMPLE: Tissues from 10 equine cadavers. PROCEDURES: Cells were isolated from left semitendinosus muscle tissue, periosteal tissue from the distomedial aspect of the right tibia, bone marrow aspirates from the fourth and fifth sternebrae, and adipose tissue from the left subcutaneous region. Mesenchymal stem cells were characterized on the basis of morphology, adherence to plastic, trilineage differentiation, and detection of stem cell surface markers via immunofluorescence and flow cytometry. Mesenchymal stem cells were tested for osteogenic potential with osteocalcin gene expression via real-time PCR assay. Mesenchymal stem cell cultures were counted at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours to determine tissue-specific MSC proliferative capacity. RESULTS: Equine muscle tissue- and periosteal tissue-derived cells were characterized as MSCs on the basis of spindle-shaped morphology, adherence to plastic, trilineage differentiation, presence of CD44 and CD90 cell surface markers, and nearly complete absence of CD45 and CD34 cell surface markers. Muscle tissue-, periosteal tissue-, and adipose tissue-derived MSCs proliferated significantly faster than did bone marrow-derived MSCs at 72 and 96 hours. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Equine muscle and periosteum are sources of MSCs. Equine muscle- and periosteal-derived MSCs have osteogenic potential comparable to that of equine adipose- and bone marrow-derived MSCs, which could make them useful for tissue engineering applications in equine medicine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".