MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“Microfluidics Studies of the Regulation of Myoblast Migration and Differentiation Behaviour – Possible Application in Wound Healing”

2021· article· en· W3169218342 on OpenAlexafffund
Ziba Roveimiab, Francis Lin, Judy E. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsC2C12ChemistryBiomedical engineeringMyocyteCell biologyRowCellPillarCell cultureMicrofluidicsNucleusMyogenesisBiophysicsMaterials scienceAnatomyBiologyNanotechnologyComputer scienceBiochemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural extracellular matrices made from cultured cells or tissues, are tissue and cell specific, and critical in tissue engineering and cellular applications. This study focused on the effects of a more naturally produced substrate, made by myotubes differentiated within a device channel, on migration and proliferation (haptotaxis) of a second set of cells (set2) loaded into the device. First, four different microfluidic devices were designed with pillars in either an offset pattern or aligned rows along the channel to investigate the myotube formation. C2C12 cells preloaded with Hoechst stain to label DNA (set1 cells), were loaded into device channels in medium with 2% serum to induce differentiation. Results showed that in devices with aligned rows, cells were more concentrated toward pillars, and their distance from a pillar was smaller than for cells in devices with offset rows of pillars. An average of 20‐30 set2 cells was tracked over 10 hours, by image capture every 2 hours in the 3 or 4 channels of each device. Results were compiled in Excel and analyzed by multi‐way ANOVAs using Jamovi software. Minimum distance to a pillar occurred rapidly, at day 0 for all four devices and increased over time. After allowing set1 cells to differentiate for 5 days, prestained set2 cells were loaded. The nucleus position of set2 cells was categorized as located nearest to one of four places in the migration channel: the nucleus of a set1 cell, an extension of a set1 cell, a pillar, or the device‐channel wall. Results showed that a 3‐channel device with offset rows of pillars was best able to lead set1 cells to form and align myotubes in the channel and then attract the most set2 cells to nuclei of those set1 cells. Since cellular proximity is critical to myotube formation and set 2 cells were closer to the set1 nuclei than to device pillars over 10 hours imaging. Differences in flow rate among the four devices suggest that the pillars’ orientation, channel dimensions, and initial velocity are factors that influenced behavioural variations among set1 cells from the time of loading to the end of the 5‐day differentiation period. Experiments in devices that were precoated with a fibronectin substrate showed that fibronectin shortened the time to confluency of set1 cells by about 2 days. Perfusion of set1 cells after 5 days of differentiation with an RGD inhibitor ((Arg‐Gly‐Asp) peptide) of fibronectin binding to integrins, induced a significant shift in the behavior of set2 cells toward proximity to set1 nuclei, whereas without RGD, set2 cells moved toward a device pillar. Additional experiments targeting processes during the fibronectin signaling in migration are in progress to further explore mechanism targeted by variations in device design that affect cell behavior or movement. Further study of cellular taxis should provide clues to identifying a device that would best create a muscle by promoting muscle fiber growth (by fusion of set2 to set1 cells) or in the longer term, induce set2 cells to become quiescent satellite (stem) cells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207