Asymmetrical endothelial cell migration from <i>in vitro</i> Quarter‐Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To investigate in vitro central and peripheral corneal endothelial cell (EC) migration from Quarter–Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (Quarter‐DMEK) grafts. Methods Quarter‐DMEK grafts were obtained from 10 corneas ineligible for transplantation but with intact and viable ECs. Ten Quarter‐DMEK grafts were ‘sandwiched’ between two glass slides and cultured over 1 week in a humidified atmosphere at 37 °C and 5% CO 2 . Cell migration was evaluated by light microscopy at standardized time intervals. In addition, immunohistochemistry analyses were performed to assess the detailed structural organization of ECs in the corneal centre and far periphery. Results Endothelial cell (EC) migration occurred from the radial cut graft edges, but not from the far peripheral area. Cell migration followed three different migration patterns: (1) individual cell migration, (2) uncoordinated cell migration of cell clusters and (3) collective migration in which ECs moved as a sheet. Immunostaining showed the presence of ECs up to the far periphery but with different expression patterns of phenotypical markers ZO‐1, Na + /K + ‐ATPase and vimentin compared to central ECs. Conclusion In vitro EC migration from Quarter‐DMEK grafts occurs along the radial cut edges with a decrease in migration activity towards the corneal far periphery. No migration occurred along the outer peripheral corneal edge possibly due to a different anatomical matrix in the far periphery. Hence, ECs from the far periphery may not contribute to corneal clearance of the adjacent bare area after Quarter‐DMEK surgery, but these cells may constitute a valuable cellular reserve on the graft.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".