Adherent muscle connective tissue fibroblasts are phenotypically and biochemically equivalent to stromal fibro/adipogenic progenitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracellular matrix (ECM) gives structure, support, and is the niche for several cells found in skeletal muscle. ECM is mainly produced by muscle connective tissue (CT) fibroblasts during development and regeneration. Stromal fibroadipogenic progenitors (FAPs) are CT fibroblasts-like mesenchymal progenitors (MPs) with important roles in regeneration and degeneration. Chronic damage restrains the normal regenerative behavior of muscle fibroblasts/FAPs. Thus, the isolation and study of these mesenchymal progenitors are of crucial importance for understanding their behavior and biology. We investigated whether adult muscle CT fibroblasts (hereafter referred to as adherent fibroblasts [aFbs]) cultured via pre-plating strategy belong to a heterogeneous population of FAPs. By combining microscopy, western blot analyses, flow cytometry, and FACS we determined that aFbs isolated from skeletal muscle largely overlap with FAPs. In addition, we used the PDGFRα EGFP mice in order to corroborate our results with EGFP + FAPs. Moreover, our strategy allows the isolation of activated EGFP + FAPs from the murine DMD model PDGFRα EGFP ; mdx and PDGFRα EGFP denervated mice. Here we report that 1 h 30 min of pre-plating strategy allows the isolation and culture of a highly enriched population of aFbs. These cells are phenotypically and biochemically a FAPs-like population of adherent cells. In addition, aFbs respond in the same fashion as FAPs to Nilotinib, an inducer of FAPs apoptosis. Moreover, flow cytometry characterization of these aFbs suggests that 85% of them express the MP marker PDGFRα, and isolation of aFbs from the PDGFRα EGFP mice suggests that 75% of them show high EGFP expression. Furthermore, TGF-β1 induces aFbs proliferation, myofibroblast differentiation, and ECM production. We were also able to isolate activated aFbs from skeletal muscle of the DMD mice and from the PDGFRα EGFP mice 2-days after denervation. Our findings suggest that the in vitro pre-plating strategy allows the isolation and culture of a relatively pure aFbs population, which resembles FAPs in vitro .
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".