ArticleThe Journal of craniofacial surgery2012
Tissue interactions between craniosynostotic dura mater and bone.
Article in The Journal of craniofacial surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of soft tissue and bone interactions in the developmental integration and modularity of the skull in neural crest-specific gap junction alpha-1 knockout mice.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2026Article
- Reimagining the meninges from a neuroimmune perspective: a boundary, but not peripheral.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2024Review
- Article
- Dura cells in the etiopathogenesis of Crouzon syndrome: the effects of FGFR2 mutations in the dura cells on the proliferation of osteoblasts through the hippo/YAP mediated transcriptional regulation pathway.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Living on the Edge of the CNS: Meninges Cell Diversity in Health and Disease.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2021Review
- Single-Cell Transcriptomic Analyses of the Developing Meninges Reveal Meningeal Fibroblast Diversity and Function.Developmental cell · 2020Article
- The Osteogenic Potential of the Neural Crest Lineage May Contribute to Craniosynostosis.Molecular syndromology · 2019Review
- Involvement of calvarial stem cells in healing: A regional analysis of large cranial defects.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2018Article
- Novel use of cranial epidural space in rabbits as an animal model to investigate bone volume augmentation potential of different bone graft substitutes.Head & face medicine · 2016Article
- Cranial neural crest cell contribution to craniofacial formation, pathology, and future directions in tissue engineering.Birth defects research. Part C, Embryo today : reviews · 2014Review
- Craniosynostosis-associated Fgfr2(C342Y) mutant bone marrow stromal cells exhibit cell autonomous abnormalities in osteoblast differentiation and bone formation.BioMed research international · 2013Article
- A review of hedgehog signaling in cranial bone development.Frontiers in physiology · 2013Article
- Vertical osteoconductivity of sputtered hydroxyapatite-coated mini titanium implants after dura mater elevation: Rabbit calvarial model.Journal of tissue engineeringArticle
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCells within the dura mater have been implicated in the determination of suture patency and fusion. Craniosynostosis (CS), the premature fusion of 1 or more of the cranial sutures, could result from abnormal control over the differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells from the dura mater. This study tested whether dura mater cells derived from rabbits with congenital CS were different from cells derived from normal rabbits and investigated the effects that CS dura mater had on osteogenic differentiation in vitro and in vivo.
methodsCells were derived from the dura mater from wild-type rabbits (WT; n = 23) or CS rabbits (n = 16). Cells were stimulated with bone morphogenetic protein 4, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression and cell proliferation were assessed. Dura mater-derived cells were also cocultured with primary rabbit bone-derived cells, and ALP was assessed. Finally, interactions between the dura mater and overlying tissues were manipulated in vivo.
resultsCraniosynostotic dura mater-derived cells proliferated faster than did WT cells but were not more ALP positive. Coculture experiments showed that CS dura mater cells induced increased ALP activity in CS bone-derived cells, but not in WT bone-derived cells. In vivo experiments showed that a physical barrier successfully inhibited dura mater-derived osteogenesis.
conclusionsCoculture of CS bone- and CS dura mater-derived cells evoked an abnormal phenotype in vitro. Covering the CS dura mater led to decreased bone formation in vivo. Further investigations will focus on the signaling molecules involved in the communication between these 2 CS tissue types in vitro and in vivo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.