ArticleArchives of oral biology2017
Similarities and differences between porcine mandibular and limb bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells.
Article in Archives of oral biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of Supracrestal Tissue Attachment Using High-Frequency Ultrasound.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026Article
- Effects of astragaloside IV on the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of human jaw bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in vitro.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Local mechanical stresses can explain the mechanoregulation of bone healing after mandibular reconstruction: an in silico study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Identification of human cranio-maxillofacial skeletal stem cells for mandibular development.Science advances · 2025Article
- Article
- Site-specific periosteal cells with distinct osteogenic and angiogenic characteristics.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Advanced Hydrogel systems for mandibular reconstruction.Bioactive materials · 2023Review
- Distinct osteogenic effect of different periosteum derived cells via Hippo-YAP cascade signaling.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2023Article
- Uncovering the unique characteristics of the mandible to improve clinical approaches to mandibular regeneration.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
- Comparison of Biological Properties and Clinical Application of Mesenchymal Stem Cells from the Mesoderm and Ectoderm.Stem cells international · 2023Review
- Phenotypic, trophic, and regenerative properties of mesenchymal stem cells from different osseous tissues.Cell and tissue research · 2022Article
- Desmoplastic fibroma of the jaw bones: A series of twenty-two cases.Journal of bone oncology · 2021Article
- Clinical, Histological, and Scintigraphic Comparative Study of the Use of Mandibular Bone Marrow and Peripheral Blood in Bone Neoformation.International journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- Superior CKIP-1 sensitivity of orofacial bone-derived mesenchymal stem cells in proliferation and osteogenic differentiation compared to long bone-derived mesenchymal stem cells.Molecular medicine reports · 2020Article
- Teriparatide (recombinant parathyroid hormone 1-34) enhances bone allograft integration in a clinically relevant pig model of segmental mandibulectomy.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2020Article
- Mesenchymal stromal cells from infants with simple polydactyly modulate immune responses more efficiently than adult mesenchymal stromal cells.Cytotherapy · 2019Article
- Osteogenic potential of mesenchymal stem cells from rat mandible to regenerate critical sized calvarial defect.Journal of tissue engineeringArticle
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
objectiveResearch has shown promise of using bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) for craniofacial bone regeneration; yet little is known about the differences of BMSCs from limb and craniofacial bones. This study compared pig mandibular and tibia BMSCs for their in vitro proliferation, osteogenic differentiation properties and gene expression.
designBone marrow was aspirated from the tibia and mandible of 3-4 month-old pigs (n=4), followed by BMSC isolation, culture-expansion and characterization by flow cytometry. Proliferation rates were assessed using population doubling times. Osteogenic differentiation was evaluated by alkaline phosphatase activity. Affymetrix porcine microarray was used to compare gene expressions of tibial and mandibular BMSCs, followed by real-time RT-PCR evaluation of certain genes.
resultsOur results showed that BMSCs from both locations expressed MSC markers but not hematopoietic markers. The proliferation and osteogenic differentiation potential of mandibular BMSCs were significantly stronger than those of tibial BMSCs. Microarray analysis identified 404 highly abundant genes, out of which 334 genes were matched between the two locations and annotated into the same functional groups including osteogenesis and angiogenesis, while 70 genes were mismatched and annotated into different functional groups. In addition, 48 genes were differentially expressed by at least 1.5-fold difference between the two locations, including higher expression of cranial neural crest-related gene BMP-4 in mandibular BMSCs, which was confirmed by real-time RT-PCR.
conclusionsAltogether, these data indicate that despite strong similarities in gene expression between mandibular and tibial BMSCs, mandibular BMSCs express some genes differently than tibial BMSCs and have a phenotypic profile that may make them advantageous for craniofacial bone regeneration.
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.