ArticleJournal of tissue engineering
Injectable scaffold materials differ in their cell instructive effects on primary human myoblasts.
Article in Journal of tissue engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Tissue Engineering Scaffold in Tendon Bone HealingFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Pooled it
- Stimuli-responsive Hydrogels for Targeted Antibiotic Delivery in Bone Tissue Engineering.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2025Review
- Emulsion-induced polymersomes taming tetrodotoxin for prolonged duration local anesthesia.Advanced therapeutics · 2023Article
- A Review of Recent Advances in Natural Polymer-Based Scaffolds for Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering.Polymers · 2022Review
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scaffolds are materials used for delivery of cells for regeneration of tissues. They support three-dimensional organization and improve cell survival. For the repair of small skeletal muscles, injections of small volumes of cells are attractive, and injectable scaffolds for delivery of cells offer a minimally invasive technique. In this study, we examined in vitro the cell instructive effects of three types of injectable scaffolds, fibrin, alginate, and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-based microparticles on primary human myoblasts. The myoblast morphology and progression in the myogenic program differed, depending on the type of scaffold material. In alginate gel, the cells obtained a round morphology, they ceased to proliferate, and entered quiescence. In the fibrin gels, differentiation was promoted, and myotubes were observed within a few days in culture, while poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-based microparticles supported prolonged proliferation. Myoblasts released from the alginate and fibrin gels were studied, and cells released from these scaffolds had retained the ability to proliferate and differentiate. Thus, the study shows that human myogenic cells combined with injectable scaffold materials are guided into different states depending on the choice of scaffold. This opens for in vivo experiments, including testing of the significance of the cell state on regeneration potential of primary human myoblasts.
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.