A comparative analysis of stem cells derived from young rabbit knee joints: the potentially superior performance of decellularized extracellular matrix pretreated infrapatellar fat pad stem cells on nanofiber scaffolds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Osteoarthritis (OA) remains a significant clinical challenge, necessitating improved strategies for cartilage repair. Stem cells and scaffolds have crucial roles in tissue repair and regeneration. In this study, we comprehensively investigated the proliferation and differentiation potential of infrapatellar fat pad stem cells (IFPSCs), synovium-derived stem cells (SDSCs), and bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) from unpretreated knee joints in young rabbits, and after decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) deposition by stem cell pretreatment in vitro . Methods We also examined adhesion and differentiation effects of poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) and poly-D, L-lactic acid (PDLLA) scaffolds after inoculation with the three stem cell types. We conducted osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic induction studies using three unpretreated stem cell groups, nine stem cell groups cross-preconditioned with different dECM types, and six stem cell groups cultured on nanofiber PLLA and PDLLA scaffolds. Staining and PCR analyses were then performed. Results In vitro studies indicated that without pretreatment, IFPSCs exhibited the highest proliferation capacity, followed by SDSCs, while BMSCs had the lowest proliferation rate. After cross-pretreatment with dECMs from different sources, IFPSCs pretreated with IECM (decellularized extracellular matrix deposited by IFPSCs) showed the greatest proliferation. BMSCs displayed the highest osteogenic potential, while SDSCs and IFPSCs showed greater chondrogenic potential. No significant differences were observed in adipogenic potential among the three groups. BMSCs exhibited reduced osteogenic potential after pretreatment with all three dECMs, whereas IFPSCs and SDSCs showed enhanced osteogenic potential following SECM and IECM pretreatment, respectively. Additionally, all 3 cell types showed reduced lipogenic potential after pretreatment with the three dECM types. For chondrogenesis, BECM pretreatment were suitable for enhancing the chondrogenic potential of all 3 cell types. Furthermore, BMSCs and IFPSCs exhibited better adhesion and survival than SDSCs on electrospun scaffolds, which mimicked dECM structures. Besides, BMSCs and IFPSCs are more suitable for PLLA to promote osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic differentiation, whereas SDSCs are better suited for PDLLA. Discussion Overall, it is anticipated that IFPSCs can be expanded with BECM pretreatment in vitro , and when combined with degradable nanofiber PLLA scaffolds in vivo, will facilitate better OA repair.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".