Reconstructed Skin by the Self‐Assembly Approach: Is the Stem Cell Niche Present In Vitro?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since stem cells are responsible for the continuous generation of the stratified epithelium, their isolation and preservation upon culture in tissue‐engineered skin (TES) is suitable to allow the long‐term regeneration of these tissues after grafting. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the dynamic of stem cells and their division in TES produced by the self‐assembly approach. The slow‐cycling property of stem cells was used to identify them with bromodeoxyuridine (BrDU) in TES produced by the self‐assembly approach. TES cultured at the air‐liquid interface were treated with BrdU for a 7‐day‐pulse period, followed by a 21‐day‐chase period. Epithelial cells of the TES were dissociated by enzymatic digestion and analyzed by flow cytometer or on tissue sections by imunofluorescence with antibodies raised against BrdU and keratin 19 (K19). Analysis revealed that basal cells have retained the nuclei BrdU labelling after the 21‐day‐chase period and most of these label‐retaining cells expressed the K19. This observation was corroborated by FACS analysis. These results suggest TES reconstructed by the self‐assembly approach provide a three‐dimensional environment that allows the preservation of stem cells in vitro and we conclude that it is suitable for grafting. This work was supported by the CIHR. L.G. is the holder of a Canadian research chair on stem cells and tissue engineering from CIHR.
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) | 0.001 | 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".