ArticleMolecular medicine reports2017
A comparative study of the influence of two types of PHEMA stents on the differentiation of ASCs to myocardial cells.
Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recapitulating Cardiac Structure and Function In Vitro from Simple to Complex Engineering.Micromachines · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the present study, subcutaneous fat was obtained from adult women that had undergone conventional liposuction surgery. A comparative study was performed to investigate the effect of transparent and white poly‑β‑hydroxyethyl methacrylate (PHEMA) stents, which have different surface and cross‑sectional morphological characteristics, on the differentiation of adipose‑derived stem cells (ASCs) into myocardial cells. The cell counting kit‑8 assay revealed that cell growth increased at varying rates among the different treatment groups. The absorbance of the experimental transparent PHEMA treated group increased in a time‑dependent manner with the duration of incubation. The highest levels of proliferation were observed in the transparent PHEMA group. In addition, the transparent PHEMA treated group exhibited the strongest cell adhesion ability, which was significantly different to that of the white PHEMA group (P<0.01 and P<0.05 for Matrigel and fibronectin assay, respectively). Comparisons between the two stent materials with the inducer control group revealed statistically significant differences in the rate of ASC differentiation (P<0.05). The level of differentiation was the greatest in the transparent PHEMA group, and was significantly different to the white PHEMA group (P<0.05) and the blank control group (P<0.01). The results suggest that the inducers 5-aza-2-deoxycytidin and laminin, and material microstructure stents effectively promote the proliferation, growth and adhesion of ASCs. However, the transparent material microstructure may be a more suitable candidate for ASC‑associated injections. The present study provides further evidence that a PHEMA stent structure, comprised of a high number of matrixes and a low water content, induces a high level of ASC differentiation to myocardial cells.
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.