In Vitro and In Vivo Biocompatibility of Bacterial Cellulose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial cellulose is a unique biomaterial produced by various species of bacteria that offers a range of potential applications in the biomedical field. To provide a cost-effective alternative to soft-tissue implants used in cavity infills, remodeling, and subdermal wound healing, in vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo biocompatibility of native bacterial cellulose were investigated. Cytotoxicity was assessed using a metabolic assay on Swiss 3T3 fibroblasts and INS-1832/13 rat insulinoma. Results showed no cytotoxicity, whether the cells were seeded over or under the bacterial cellulose scaffolds. Biocompatibility was performed on Sprague-Dawley rats (males and females, 8 weeks old) by implanting bacterial cellulose membranes subcutaneously for 1 or 12 weeks. The explanted scaffolds were then sliced and stained with hematoxylin and eosin for histological characterization. The first series of results revealed acute and chronic inflammation persisting over 12 weeks. Examination of the explants indicated a high number of granulocytes within the periphery of the bacterial cellulose, suggesting the presence of endotoxins within the membrane, confirmed by a Limulus amebocyte lysate test. This discovery motivated the development of non-pyrogenic bacterial cellulose scaffolds. Following this, a second series of animal experiments was done, in which materials were implanted for 1 or 2 weeks. The results revealed mild inflammation 1 week after implantation, which then diminished to minimal inflammation after 2 weeks. Altogether, this study highlights that unmodified, purified native bacterial cellulose membranes may be used as a cost-effective biomedical device provided that proper endotoxin clearance is achieved.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".