ArticlePloS one2022
Development of a simple and versatile in vitro method for production, stimulation, and analysis of bioengineered muscle.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D skeletal muscle model recapitulating the myostatin knockout phenotypic and mitochondrial metabolic features.Physiological reports · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional models of skeletal muscle under tension: a systematic review and core outcome set.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2026Article
- Biofabrication of a 3D human skeletal muscle microenvironment to study the early steps of fibrosis.Materials today. Bio · 2025Article
- Establishment of a CaCC-based Cell Model and Method for High-throughput Screening of M3 Receptor Drugs.Cell biochemistry and biophysics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, 3D in vitro modeling of human skeletal muscle has emerged as a subject of increasing interest, due to its applicability in basic studies or screening platforms. These models strive to recapitulate key features of muscle architecture and function, such as cell alignment, maturation, and contractility in response to different stimuli. To this end, it is required to culture cells in biomimetic hydrogels suspended between two anchors. Currently available protocols are often complex to produce, have a high rate of breakage, or are not adapted to imaging and stimulation. Therefore, we sought to develop a simplified and reliable protocol, which still enabled versatility in the study of muscle function. In our method, we have used human immortalized myoblasts cultured in a hydrogel composed of MatrigelTM and fibrinogen, to create muscle strips suspended between two VELCROTM anchors. The resulting muscle constructs show a differentiated phenotype and contractile activity in response to electrical, chemical and optical stimulation. This activity is analyzed by two alternative methods, namely contraction analysis and calcium analysis with Fluo-4 AM. In all, our protocol provides an optimized version of previously published methods, enabling individual imaging of muscle bundles and straightforward analysis of muscle response with standard image analysis software. This system provides a start-to-finish guide on how to produce, validate, stimulate, and analyze bioengineered muscle. This ensures that the system can be quickly established by researchers with varying degrees of expertise, while maintaining reliability and similarity to native muscle.
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.