In-vitro analysis of rhBMP-2 effects in human osteogenic cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the in vitro expression of bone-related proteins by osteoblasts in the presence of different concentrations of human recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Immortalized human fetal osteoblastic cell line 1.19 (hFOB) were exposed to different concentrations of rhBMP-2 (10, 50, or 100 ng/mL) for 72 h. Cell proliferation and viability (MTT assay), as well as the expression of fibronectin, osteonectin, and osteopontin were assessed by indirect immunofluorescence and Western blot. Neither of the 3 concentrations of rhBMP-2 caused statistically significant alterations in cell proliferation and viability, although the concentration of 100 ng/mL showed lower values for both assays after both 48 and 72 h of exposure. There was no alteration in the expression of noncollagenous proteins, as analyzed by immunofluorescence, when compared with the control group. Furthermore, in the Western blot assay we observed a statistically significant decrease in fibronectin and osteonectin at 100 ng rhBMP-2/mL (p < 0.05) by comparison with the medium alone. The expression of osteopontin decreased slightly in all 3 concentrations of rhBMP-2 tested; however, the change was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In this in-vitro study, the tested concentrations of rhBMP-2 appeared to decrease the expression of important bone-related molecules in pre-osteoblast cells.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".