MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013322751 · doi:10.3390/ijms21072368

Analysis of Intracellular Magnesium and Mineral Depositions during Osteogenic Commitment of 3D Cultured Saos2 Cells

2020· article· en· W3013322751 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanna Picone, Concettina Cappadone, Alice Pasini, Joseph Lovecchio, Marilisa Cortesi, Giovanna Farruggia, Marco Lombardo, Alessandra Gianoncelli, Lucia Mancini, R.H. Menk, Sandro Donato, Emanuele� Giordano, Emil Malucelli, Stefano Iotti

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnesiumIntracellularBiomineralizationChemistryCell biologyPhenotypeCellular differentiationMineralBiophysicsBiochemistryBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we explore the behaviour of intracellular magnesium during bone phenotype modulation in a 3D cell model built to mimic osteogenesis. In addition, we measured the amount of magnesium in the mineral depositions generated during osteogenic induction. A two-fold increase of intracellular magnesium content was found, both at three and seven days from the induction of differentiation. By X-ray microscopy, we characterized the morphology and chemical composition of the mineral depositions secreted by 3D cultured differentiated cells finding a marked co-localization of Mg with P at seven days of differentiation. This is the first experimental evidence on the presence of Mg in the mineral depositions generated during biomineralization, suggesting that Mg incorporation occurs during the bone forming process. In conclusion, this study on the one hand attests to an evident involvement of Mg in the process of cell differentiation, and, on the other hand, indicates that its multifaceted role needs further investigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207