LRP receptors in chondrocytes are modulated by simulated microgravity and cyclic hydrostatic pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical loading is essential for the maintenance of musculoskeletal homeostasis. Cartilage has been demonstrated to be highly mechanoresponsive, but the mechanisms by which chondrocytes respond to mechanical stimuli are not clearly understood. The goal of the study was to determine how LRP4, LRP5, and LRP6 within canonical Wnt-signaling are regulated in simulated microgravity and cyclic hydrostatic pressure, and to investigate the potential role of LRP 4/5/6 in cartilage degeneration. Rat chondrosacroma cell (RCS) pellets were stimulated using either cyclic hydrostatic pressure (1Hz, 7.5 MPa, 4hr/day) or simulated microgravity in a rotating wall vessel (RWV) bioreactor (11RPM, 24hr/day). LRP4/5/6 mRNA expression was assessed by RT-qPCR and LRP5 protein expression was determined by fluorescent immunostaining. To further evaluate our in vitro findings in vivo, mice were subjected to hindlimb suspension for 14 days and the femoral heads stained for LRP5 expression. We found that, in vitro, LRP4/5/6 mRNA expression is modulated in a time-dependent manner by mechanical stimulation. Additionally, LRP5 protein expression is upregulated in response to both simulated microgravity and cyclic hydrostatic pressure. LRP5 is also upregulated in vivo in the articular cartilage of hindlimb suspended mice. This is the first study to examine how LRP4/5/6, critical receptors within musculoskeletal biology, respond to mechanical stimulation. Further elucidation of this mechanism could provide significant clinical benefit for the identification of pharmaceutical targets for the maintenance of cartilage health.
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 | 0.000 | 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".