Mesenchymal stem cells <scp>derived‐exosomes</scp> enhanced amniotic membrane extract promotes corneal keratocyte proliferation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Amniotic membrane extract (AME) and Wharton's jelly mesenchymal stem cells derived‐exosomes (WJ‐MSC‐Exos) are promising therapeutic solutions explored for their potential in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, particularly in skin and corneal wound healing applications. AME is an extract form of human amniotic membrane and known to contain a plethora of cytokines and growth factors, making it a highly attractive option for topical applications. Similarly, WJ‐MSC‐Exos have garnered significant interest for their wound healing properties. Although WJ‐MSC‐Exos and AME have been used separately for wound healing research, their combined synergistic effects have not been studied extensively. In this study, we evaluated the effects of both AME and WJ‐MSC‐Exos, individually and together, on the proliferation of corneal keratocytes as well as their ability to promote in vitro cell migration, wound healing, and their impact on cellular morphology. Our findings indicated that the presence of both exosomes (3 × 10 5 Exo/mL) and AME (50 μg/mL) synergistically enhance the proliferation of corneal keratocytes. Combined use of these solutions (3 × 10 5 Exo/mL + 50 μg/mL) increased cell proliferation compared to only 50 μg/mL AME treatment on day 3 (**** p < 0.0001). This mixture treatment (3 × 10 5 Exo/mL + 50 μg/mL) increased wound closure rate compared to isolated WJ‐MSC‐Exo treatment (3 × 10 5 Exo/mL) (* p < 0.05). Overall, corneal keratocytes treated with AME and WJ‐MSC‐Exo (3 × 10 5 Exo/mL + 50 μg/mL) mixture resulted in enhanced proliferation and wound healing tendency. Utilization of combined use of AME and WJ‐MSC‐Exo can pave the way for a promising foundation for corneal repair research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".