Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20362329›Full record

ArticleBiomaterials2010

Cell contraction forces in scaffolds with varying pore size and cell density.

Karolina A Corin, Lorna J Gibson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomaterials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. International journal of bioprinting · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Methodologies in creating skin substitutes.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2016
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Multiscale mechanical simulations of cell compacted collagen gels.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2013
    Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Karolina A CorinDepartment of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Lorna J Gibson

Funding

Molecular, Cell and Tissue Biomechanics Training GrantT32EB006348 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI KAMM, ROGER D · 2006 to 2010
$1.6M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB006348NIBIB NIH HHS T32-EB006348
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The contractile behavior of cells is relevant in understanding wound healing and scar formation. In tissue engineering, inhibition of the cell contractile response is critical for the regeneration of physiologically normal tissue rather than scar tissue. Previous studies have measured the contractile response of cells in a variety of conditions (e.g. on two-dimensional solid substrates, on free-floating tissue engineering scaffolds and on scaffolds under some constraint in a cell force monitor). Tissue engineering scaffolds behave mechanically like open-cell elastomeric foams: between strains of about 10 and 90%, cells progressively buckle struts in the scaffold. The contractile force required for an individual cell to buckle a strut within a scaffold has been estimated based on the strut dimensions (radius, r, and length, l) and the strut modulus, E(s). Since the buckling force varies, according to Euler's law, with r(4)/l(2), and the relative density of the scaffold varies as (r/l)(2), the cell contractile force associated with strut buckling is expected to vary with the square of the pore size for scaffolds of constant relative density. As the cell density increases, the force per cell to achieve a given strain in the scaffold is expected to decrease. Here we model the contractile response of fibroblasts by analyzing the response of a single tetrakaidecahedron to forces applied to individual struts (simulating cell contractile forces) using finite element analysis. We model tetrakaidecahedra of different strut lengths, corresponding to different scaffold pore sizes, and of varying numbers of loaded struts, corresponding to varying cell densities. We compare our numerical model with the results of free-floating contraction experiments of normal human dermal fibroblasts (NHDF) in collagen-GAG scaffolds of varying pore size and with varying cell densities.

Indexed as

Cell CountCell ProliferationCell SurvivalCollagenDermisFibroblastsHumansModels, BiologicalPorosityTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsCollagen

Identifiers

PMID20362329
PMCPMC2860620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.