Cell Cycle Synchronization of Primary Articular Chondrocytes Enhances Chondrogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Although tissue engineering is a promising option for articular cartilage repair, it has been challenging to generate functional cartilaginous tissue. While the synthetic response of chondrocytes can be influenced by various means, most approaches treat chondrocytes as a homogeneous population that would respond similarly. However, isolated cells heterogeneously progress through the cell cycle, which can affect macromolecular biosynthesis. As it is possible to synchronize cells within discrete cell cycle phases, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cell cycle synchronization on the chondrogenic potential of primary articular chondrocytes. Design Different methods of cell synchronization (serum starvation, thymidine, nocodazole, aphidicolin, and RO-3306) were tested for their ability to synchronize primary articular chondrocytes during the process of cell isolation. Cells (unsynchronized and synchronized) were then encapsulated in alginate gels, cultured for 4 weeks, and analyzed for their structural and biochemical properties. Results The double-thymidine method yielded the highest level of cell purity, with cells synchronized in S phase. While the cells started to lose synchronization after 24 hours, tissue constructs developed from initially S phase synchronized cells had significantly higher glycosaminoglycan and collagen II amounts than those developed using unsynchronized cells. Conclusions Initial synchronization led to long-term changes in cartilaginous tissue formation. This effect was postulated to be due to the rapid auto-induction of TGF-βs by actively dividing S phase cells, thereby stimulating chondrogenesis. Cell synchronization methods may also be applied in conjunction with redifferentiation methods to improve the chondrogenic potential of dedifferentiated or diseased chondrocytes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".