DNA hydrogels for bone regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and promote hydroxyapatite (HAP) growth along the DNA backbone combined with their degradation and release of extracellular phosphate, a known promoter of osteogenic differentiation, make DNA-based biomaterials unlike other currently used materials. However, their use as biodegradable scaffolds for bone repair remains scarce. Here, we describe the design and synthesis of DNA hydrogels, gels composed of DNA that swell in water, their interactions in vitro with the osteogenic cell lines MC3T3-E1 and mouse calvarial osteoblast, and their promotion of new bone formation in rat calvarial wounds. We found that DNA hydrogels can be readily synthesized at room temperature, and they promote HAP growth in vitro, as characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy. Osteogenic cells remain viable when seeded on DNA hydrogels in vitro, as characterized by fluorescence microscopy. In vivo, DNA hydrogels promote the formation of new bone in rat calvarial critical size defects, as characterized by micro-computed tomography and histology. This study uses DNA hydrogels as a potential therapeutic biomaterial for regenerating lost bone.
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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".