Mechanosensitive Osteogenesis on Native Cellulose Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, plant-derived cellulosic biomaterials have become a popular way to create scaffolds for a variety of tissue engineering applications. Moreover, such scaffolds possess similar physical properties (porosity, stiffness) that resemble bone tissues and have been explored as potential biomaterials for tissue engineering applications. Here, plant-derived cellulose scaffolds were seeded with MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblast cells. Moreover, to assess the potential of these biomaterials, we also applied cyclic hydrostatic pressure (HP) to the cells and scaffolds over time to mimic a bone-like environment more closely. After one week of proliferation, cell-seeded scaffolds were exposed to HP up to 270 KPa at a frequency of 1Hz, once per day, for up to two weeks. Scaffolds were incubated in osteogenic inducing media (OM) or regular culture media (CM). The effect of cyclic HP combined with OM on cell-seeded scaffolds resulted in an increase of differentiated cells. This corresponded to an upregulation of alkaline phosphatase activity and scaffold mineralization. Importantly, the results reveal that well known mechanosensitive pathways cells which regulate osteogenesis appear to remain functional even on novel plant-derived cellulosic biomaterials.
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) | 0.002 | 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".