Effectiveness of Clinical-Grade Chondroitin Sulfate and Ascorbic Acid in Mitigating Cryoprotectant Toxicity in Porcine Articular Cartilage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High concentrations of cryoprotective agents (CPAs) are required to achieve successful vitrification of articular cartilage; however, CPA cytotoxicity causes chondrocyte death. To reduce CPA toxicity, supplementation with research-grade additives, in particular chondroitin sulfate (CS) and ascorbic acid (AA), have previously been shown to improve chondrocyte recovery and metabolic function after exposure to CPAs at hypothermic conditions. However, it is necessary to evaluate the pharmaceutical equivalent clinical grade of these additives to facilitate the supplementation of additives into future vitrification protocols, which will be designed for vitrifying human articular cartilage in tissue banks. We sought to investigate the effectiveness of clinical-grade CS, AA, and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in mitigating toxicity to chondrocytes during CPA exposure and removal, and determine whether a combination of two additives would further improve chondrocyte viability. We hypothesized that clinical-grade additives would exert chondroprotective effects comparable to those of research-grade additives, and that this protective effect would be enhanced if two additives were combined when compared with a single additive. The results indicated that both clinical-grade and research-grade additives significantly improved cell viability (p < 0.10) compared with the negative control (CPA with no additives). CS, AA, and NAC+AA increased cell viability significantly (p < 0.10) compared with the negative control. However, NAC, NAC+CS, and CS+AA did not improve cell viability when compared with the negative control (p > 0.10). We demonstrated that supplementation with clinical-grade CS or AA significantly improved chondrocyte viability in porcine cartilage subjected to high CPA concentrations, whereas supplementation with clinical-grade NAC did not benefit chondrocyte viability. Supplementation with clinical-grade additives in CPA solutions can mitigate CPA toxicity, which will be important in translating previously developed effective protocols for the vitrification of articular cartilage to human tissue banks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".