Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34913125›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2022

Ex Vivo Culture of Human Cranial Suture Cells.

Peter J Anderson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Peter J AndersonAustralian Craniofacial Unit, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia. peter.anderson2@sa.gov.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The culture of human cranial suture cells, including their osteoblasts, is an important asset to developmental and molecular biologists to allow study the molecular biology ex vivo. The use of cell cultures by bone biologists to investigate pathological bone formation has been well established (Marie et al. Vitro Cell Dev Biol 25:373-380, 1989), and the use of cell culture techniques was subsequently applied to investigate craniosynostosis (Marie. J Bone Miner Res 9(12):1847-1850, 1994). Cell cultures from fused, fusing, and fused cranial sutures allow comparative studies of cellular behavior from sutures with pathological craniosynostosis and those with unaffected sutures (Coussens et al. J Cell Physiol 218(1):183-191, 2009; Coussens et al. Differentiation 76(5):531-545, 2008).In addition to using this limited human resource for primary investigations, these human cell studies may be targeted to complement and help verify the findings of investigative studies undertaken using the more readily accessible animal cranial sutures. It is important, however, to remember that there may be critical differences in the animal genome which could impact on cellular function.This chapter describes the techniques for human suture cell culture and storage which have been used successfully since 2005 in the craniosynostosis laboratories in Adelaide.

Indexed as

Cranial SuturesAnimalsCell DifferentiationCraniosynostosesHumansOsteoblastsSuturesCell cultureCraniosynostosisOsteoblastStem cell

Identifiers

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.