Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33150771›Full record

ReviewJournal of Zhejiang University. Science. B

Effects of nanofibers on mesenchymal stem cells: environmental factors affecting cell adhesion and osteogenic differentiation and their mechanisms.

Dan Yu, Jin Wang, Ke-Jia Qian, Jing Yu, Hui-Yong Zhu

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. [Differentiation of stem cells regulated by biophysical cues].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dan YuDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Jin WangDepartment of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310058, China.
Ke-Jia QianDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Jing YuDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Hui-Yong ZhuDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.
First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University · CNZhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanofibers can mimic natural tissue structure by creating a more suitable environment for cells to grow, prompting a wide application of nanofiber materials. In this review, we include relevant studies and characterize the effect of nanofibers on mesenchymal stem cells, as well as factors that affect cell adhesion and osteogenic differentiation. We hypothesize that the process of bone regeneration in vitro is similar to bone formation and healing in vivo, and the closer nanofibers or nanofibrous scaffolds are to natural bone tissue, the better the bone regeneration process will be. In general, cells cultured on nanofibers have a similar gene expression pattern and osteogenic behavior as cells induced by osteogenic supplements in vitro. Genes involved in cell adhesion (focal adhesion kinase (FAK)), cytoskeletal organization, and osteogenic pathways (transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β)/bone morphogenic protein (BMP), mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), and Wnt) are upregulated successively. Cell adhesion and osteogenesis may be influenced by several factors. Nanofibers possess certain physical properties including favorable hydrophilicity, porosity, and swelling properties that promote cell adhesion and growth. Moreover, nanofiber stiffness plays a vital role in cell fate, as cell recruitment for osteogenesis tends to be better on stiffer scaffolds, with associated signaling pathways of integrin and Yes-associated protein (YAP)/transcriptional co-activator with PDZ-binding motif (TAZ). Also, hierarchically aligned nanofibers, as well as their combination with functional additives (growth factors, HA particles, etc.), contribute to osteogenesis and bone regeneration. In summary, previous studies have indicated that upon sensing the stiffness of the nanofibrous environment as well as its other characteristics, stem cells change their shape and tension accordingly, regulating downstream pathways followed by adhesion to nanofibers to contribute to osteogenesis. However, additional experiments are needed to identify major signaling pathways in the bone regeneration process, and also to fully investigate its supportive role in fabricating or designing the optimum tissue-mimicking nanofibrous scaffolds.

Indexed as

Cell AdhesionTissue ScaffoldsAnimalsBone Morphogenetic ProteinsBone RegenerationCell DifferentiationCell ProliferationCells, CulturedExtracellular MatrixHumansMAP Kinase Signaling SystemMesenchymal Stem CellsNanofibersOsteogenesisSignal TransductionStem CellsBone Morphogenetic ProteinsTransforming Growth Factor betaNanofiber; Stem cell; Mimicking natural tissue; Morphology; Signaling pathway

Identifiers

PMID33150771
PMCPMC7691686
OpenAlexW3095598636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.