Endothelial characteristics in healthy endothelial colony forming cells; generating a robust and valid ex vivo model for vascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endothelial colony forming cells (ECFCs) derived from peripheral blood can be used to analyze the pathophysiology of vascular diseases ex vivo. However, heterogeneity is observed between ECFC clones and this variability needs to be understood and standardized for ECFCs to be used as a cell model for applications in vascular studies. OBJECTIVE: Determine reference characteristics of healthy control ECFCs to generate a valid ex vivo model for vascular disease. METHODS: Putative ECFCs (n = 47) derived from 21 individual healthy subjects were studied for cell morphology and specific cell characteristics. Clones were analyzed for the production and secretion of von Willebrand factor (VWF), cell proliferation, and the expression of endothelial cell markers. RESULTS: Based on morphology, clones were categorized into three groups. Group 1 consisted of clones with classic endothelial cell morphology, whereas groups 2 and 3 contained less condensed cells with increasing cell sizes. All clones had comparable endothelial cell surface expression profiles, with low levels of non-endothelial markers. However, a decrease in CD31 and a group-related increase in CD309 and CD45 expression, combined with a decrease in cell proliferation and VWF production and secretion, was observed in clones in group 3 and to a lesser extent in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: We observed group-related variations in endothelial cell characteristics when clones lacked the classic endothelial cell morphology. Despite this variation, clones in all groups expressed endothelial cell surface markers. Provided that clones with similar characteristics are compared, we believe ECFCs are a valid ex vivo model to study vascular disease.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".