Nanofibrous Composites Reinforced by MoS <sub>2</sub> Nanosheets as a Conductive Scaffold for Cardiac Tissue Engineering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mimicking the structure of extracellular matrix and electrical conductivity of myocardium are required to regenerate the functional cardiac tissue. In this study, Molybdenum disulfide, MoS 2 , nanosheets were synthesized and incorporated into nylon6 electrospun nanofibers in order to enhance the mechanical properties and electrical conductivity of the scaffolds. Then, the mouse embryonic cardiac cells, mECCs, were seeded on the scaffolds for in vitro studies. The MoS 2 nanosheets were studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Raman spectroscopy. Nylon/MoS 2 nanofibers were characterized by SEM, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), water contact angle measurement, electrical conductivity, and tensile test. Furthermore, cytocompatibility of scaffolds was confirmed by 3‐(4, 5‐dimethylthiazol‐2‐yl)‐2,5‐diphenyl tetrazolium bromide, MTT, assay. SEM images showed more elongated morphology for mECCs attached to the nylon/MoS 2 scaffold. Also, the Real‐Time PCR and immunostaining studies indicated the maturation and upregulation of cardiac functional genes including GATA‐4, c‐TnT, Nkx 2.5 and α‐MHC in the nylon/MoS 2 scaffold in comparison to the bare nylon. Therefore, MoS 2 reinforced nylon nanofibrous scaffolds can be considered as a suitable candidate in cardiac tissue engineering.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it