ArticleBiomedical engineering online2014
A facile in vitro model to study rapid mineralization in bone tissues.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for the Codelivery of Osteoclasts and Mesenchymal Stem Cells in 3D-Printable Osteochondral Scaffolds.Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods · 2024Article
- Role of Physico-Chemical and Cellular Conditions on the Bone Repair Potential of Plastically Compressed Collagen Hydrogels.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Role of Apoptosis and Oxidative Stress in a Cell Spheroid Model of Calcific Aortic Valve Disease.Cells · 2023Article
- Functionalized 3D-Printed PLA Biomimetic Scaffold for Repairing Critical-Size Bone Defects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Kaempferol-loaded bioactive glass-based scaffold for bone tissue engineering: in vitro and in vivo evaluation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Temporal Modulation of DNA Methylation and Gene Expression in Monolayer and 3D Spheroids of Dental Pulp Stem Cells during Osteogenic Differentiation: A Comparative Study.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2022Article
- Physiological Mineralization during In Vitro Osteogenesis in a Biomimetic Spheroid Culture Model.Cells · 2022Article
- Biomaterial-Based Nanocomposite for Osteogenic Repurposing of Doxycycline.International journal of nanomedicine · 2021Article
- Regulation of endothelial cell arrangements within hMSC - HUVEC co-cultured aggregates.Biomedical journal · 2019Article
- Assessment of bone regeneration of a tissue-engineered bone complex using human dental pulp stem cells/poly(ε-caprolactone)-biphasic calcium phosphate scaffold constructs in rabbit calvarial defects.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2017Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMineralization in bone tissue involves stepwise cell-cell and cell-ECM interaction. Regulation of osteoblast culture microenvironments can tailor osteoblast proliferation and mineralization rate, and the quality and/or quantity of the final calcified tissue. An in vitro model to investigate the influencing factors is highly required.
methodsWe developed a facile in vitro model in which an osteoblast cell line and aggregate culture (through the modification of culture well surfaces) were used to mimic intramembranous bone mineralization. The effect of culture environments including culture duration (up to 72 hours for rapid mineralization study) and aggregates size (monolayer culture as control) on mineralization rate and mineral quantity/quality were examined by osteogenic gene expression (PCR) and mineral markers (histological staining, SEM-EDX and micro-CT).
resultsTwo size aggregates (on average, large aggregates were 745 μm and small 79 μm) were obtained by the facile technique with high yield. Cells in aggregate culture generated visible and quantifiable mineralized matrix within 24 hours, whereas cells in monolayer failed to do so by 72 hours. The gene expression of important ECM molecules for bone formation including collagen type I, alkaline phosphatase, osteopontin and osteocalcin, varied temporally, differed between monolayer and aggregate cultures, and depended on aggregate size. Monolayer specimens stayed in a proliferation phase for the first 24 hours, and remained in matrix synthesis up to 72 hours; whereas the small aggregates were in the maturation phase for the first 24 and 48 hour cultures and then jumped to a mineralization phase at 72 hours. Large aggregates were in a mineralization phase at all these three time points and produced 36% larger bone nodules with a higher calcium content than those in the small aggregates after just 72 hours in culture.
conclusionsThis study confirms that aggregate culture is sufficient to induce rapid mineralization and that aggregate size determines the mineralization rate. Mineral content depended on aggregate size and culture duration. Thus, our culture system may provide a good model to study regulation factors at different development phases of the osteoblastic lineage.
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.