MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784127186 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10031

The Interaction of BMP2‐Induced Defect Healing in Rat and Fixator Stiffness Modulates Matrix Alignment and Contraction

2018· article· en· W2784127186 on OpenAlexaff
Carolin Schwarz, Claus‐Eric Ott, Dag Wulsten, Erik Brauer, Sophie Schreivogel, Ansgar Petersen, Kerstin Hassanein, Linda Roewer, Tanja Schmidt, Bettina M. Willie, Georg N. Duda

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada
FundersBerlin-Brandenburg School for Regenerative TherapiesDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsExternal fixatorStiffnessBone morphogenetic protein 2Contraction (grammar)Bone healingBone matrixMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringOrthodonticsMedicineAnatomyChemistryComposite materialInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Successful fracture healing requires a tight interplay between mechanical and biological cues. In vitro studies illustrated that mechanical loading modulates bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling. However, in the early phases of large bone defect regeneration in vivo, the underlying mechanisms leading to this mechanosensation remained unknown. We investigated the interaction of BMP2 stimulation and mechanical boundary conditions in a rat critical‐sized femoral defect model (5 mm) stabilized with three distinctly different external fixator stiffness. Defects were treated with 5 μg rhBMP2 loaded on an absorbable collagen sponge. Early matrix alignment was monitored by second‐harmonic generation imaging. Bony bridging of defects and successive healing was monitored by histology at day 7 and day 14 as well as in vivo microCT at days 10, 21, and 42 post‐operation. Femora harvested at day 42 were characterized mechanically assessing torsional load to failure ex vivo. At tissue level, differences between groups were visible at day 14 with manifest bone formation in the microCT. Histologically, we observed prolonged chondrogenesis upon flexible fixation, whereas osteogenesis started earlier after rigid and semirigid fixation. At later time points, there was a boost of bone tissue formation upon flexible fixation, whereas other groups already displayed signs of tissue maturation. Based on gene expression profiling, we analyzed the mechanobiological interplay. Already at day 3, these analyses revealed differences in expression pattern, specifically of genes involved in extracellular matrix formation. Gene regulation correlating with fixator stiffness was pronounced at day 7 comprising genes related to immunological processes and cellular contraction. The influence of loading on matrix contraction was further investigated and confirmed in a 3D bioreactor. Taken together, we demonstrate an early onset of mechanical conditions influencing BMP2‐induced defect healing and shed light on gene regulatory networks associated with extracellular matrix organization and contraction that seemed to directly impact healing outcomes. © 2018 The Authors. JBMR Plus is published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207