Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31820506›Full record

ArticleCell proliferation2020

A novel method to improve the osteogenesis capacity of hUCMSCs with dual-directional pre-induction under screened co-culture conditions.

Qiong Rong, Shuyi Li, Yang Zhou, Yuanming Geng, Shangbin Liu, Wanqiu Wu, Tim Forouzanfar, Gang Wu, Zhiyong Zhang, Miao Zhou

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell proliferation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Co-Culture Approaches in Cartilage and Bone Tissue Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Effect of Angiogenesis in Bone Tissue Engineering.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Use of stem cells in bone regeneration in cleft palate patients: review and recommendations.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Qiong RongKey Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Shuyi LiDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Pathology, Amsterdam UMC and Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Yang ZhouKey Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yuanming GengDepartment of Stomatology, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Shangbin LiuKey Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Wanqiu WuKey Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Tim ForouzanfarDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery/Pathology, Amsterdam UMC and Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gang WuDepartment of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Zhiyong ZhangTranslational Research Centre of Regenerative Medicine and 3D Printing Technologies of Guangzhou Medical University, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Miao ZhouKey Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0788-1923

Funding

Bureau of Education of Guangzhou Municipality 1201610458Guangzhou Science, Technology and Innovation Commission 201704030024Guangzhou Science, Technology and Innovation Commission 201803040008International Team for Implantology 881_2012Joint Fund for Applied Basic Research of Yunnan Provincial Science and Technology Department-Kunming Medical School 2017FE468-168National Major Science and Technology Project of China 2016YFC1102900National Nature Science Foundation of China 81671029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) based therapy for bone regeneration has been regarded as a promising method in the clinic. However, hBMSCs with invasive harvesting process and undesirable proliferation rate hinder the extensive usage. HUCMSCs of easier access and excellent performances provide an alternative for the fabrication of tissue-engineered bone construct. Evidence suggested the osteogenesis ability of hUCMSCs was weaker than that of hBMSCs. To address this issue, a co-culture strategy of osteogenically and angiogenically induced hUCMSCs has been proposed since thorough vascularization facilitates the blood-borne nutrition and oxygen to transport in the scaffold, synergistically expediting the process of ossification. MATERIALS AND

methodsHerein, we used osteogenic- and angiogenic-differentiated hUCMSCs for co-culture in screened culture medium to elevate the osteogenic capacity with in vitro studies and finally coupled with 3D TCP scaffold to repair rat's critical-sized calvarial bone defect. By dual-directional induction, hUCMSCs could differentiate into osteoblasts and endothelial cells, respectively. To optimize the co-culture condition, gradient ratios of dual-directional differentiated hUCMSCs co-cultured under different medium were studied to determine the appropriate condition.

resultsIt revealed that the osteogenic- and angiogenic-induced hUCMSCs mixed with the ratio of 3:1 co-cultured in the mixed medium of osteogenic induction medium to endothelial cell induction medium of 3:1 possessed more mineralization nodules. Similarly, ALP and osteogenesis/angiogenesis-related genes expressions were relatively higher. Further evidence of bone defect repair with 3D printed TCP of 3:1 group exhibited better restoration outcomes.

conclusionsOur work demonstrated a favourable and convenient approach of dual-directional differentiated hUCMSCs co-culture to improve the osteogenesis, establishing a novel way to fabricate tissue-engineered bone graft with 3D TCP for large bone defect augmentation.

Indexed as

AnimalsBone and BonesBone RegenerationCell DifferentiationCells, CulturedCoculture TechniquesEndothelial CellsHumansMaleMesenchymal Stem CellsOsteoblastsOsteogenesisRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyTissue EngineeringTissue Scaffoldsbone defectco-culturedual-directional differentiationhuman umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cellsosteogenesis

Identifiers

PMID31820506
PMCPMC7078770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.