MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4293799743 · doi:10.1101/2022.08.18.500253

Mesenchymal stromal cell encapsulation in uniform chitosan beads using microchannel emulsification

2022· preprint· en· W4293799743 on OpenAlexafffund
Dongjin S. Shin, Francesco K. Touani, Damon G. K. Aboud, Anne‐Marie Kietzig, Sophie Lerouge, Corinne A. Hoesli

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsMicrochannelDispersityMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringChitosanMesenchymal stem cellEmulsionMicrofluidicsStromal cellChromatographyNanotechnologyChemistryChemical engineeringPolymer chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Mesenchymal stromal/stem cells hold potential in repairing damaged tissue through paracrine effects. Their delivery though injectable biodegradable microbeads can improve cell retention and survival at the infusion site. A stirred emulsion process was previously implemented to immobilize these cells in injectable chitosan microbeads for cell therapy applications, but this process leads to broad bead size distribution (coefficient of variation > 40 %). Polydisperse beads may negatively affect the viability of the entrapped cells through oxygen limitations, damage to larger beads during injection, and reduced control over the cell payload and treatment reproducibility. The objective of this work was to modify a microchannel emulsification system initially designed for alginate-based encapsulation to immobilize mesenchymal stromal/stem cells in monodisperse chitosan microbeads. The main factors (e.g., microchannel geometry, chitosan solution viscosity, interfacial tension and flow rate) affecting droplet generation and diameter were investigated. The adapted process enabled the production of monodisperse chitosan microbeads with controlled sizes ranging from 600 µm – 1500 µm in diameter at a coefficient of variation less than 10 %. In a single pass through a 21 G syringe needle (ID: 513 µm), the fraction of ruptured beads was significantly reduced for microchannel-generated vs stirred emulsion-generated beads with matching volume-weighed bead diameter (D[4,3]). The viability of the immobilized cells immediately after the process was 95 % ± 2 % and no significant difference in cell survival and growth factor secretion was observed between microchannel and stirred emulsion-generated beads over 3 days of culture. Future directions include channel multiplexing to increase throughput for clinical applications. Although the device was developed for cell encapsulation, this process could be implemented for encapsulation of other biomolecules, bioactive or living cell agents for applications in the food and drug industry.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicPancreatic function and diabetes→French-language works237,207→