ArticlePolymers2025
Adhesion of Mesenchymal Stem Cells to Glycated Collagen-Comparative Analysis of Dynamic and Static Conditions.
Article in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collagen Type I as a Biological Barrier Interface in Biomimetic Microfluidic Devices: Properties, Applications, and Challenges.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) behavior on glycated collagen is crucial for advancing regenerative medicine and understanding pathological mechanisms in diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and aging. While previous research has demonstrated reduced MSC interaction with glycated collagen under static conditions due to disrupted integrin signaling, these studies did not accurately replicate the dynamic mechanical environment that MSCs encounter in vivo. Here we present a comprehensive investigation comparing adipose-derived MSC (ADMSC) behavior under both dynamic flow conditions and static adhesion, revealing unexpected temporal dynamics and challenging existing paradigms of cell-matrix interactions. Using a sophisticated microfluidic BioFlux system combined with traditional static adhesion assays, we examined ADMSC interactions with native collagen for 1-day glycated (GL1), and 5-day glycated (GL5) samples. Under flow conditions, MSCs demonstrated remarkably rapid attachment-within 3-5 min-contrasting sharply with the classical 2 h static incubation protocol. This rapid adhesion was particularly enhanced on 5-day glycated collagen, though subsequent testing revealed significantly weaker adhesion strength under shear stress compared to native collagen. Static conditions also showed a distinct pattern: increased ADMSC adhesion to glycated samples within the first 30 min, followed by a progressive decrease in adhesion and compromised cell spreading over longer periods. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) analysis revealed significant changes in collagen surface properties upon glycation. These included a substantial reduction in the negative surface charge (from ~800 to 600 mV), altered surface roughness patterns (Rrms varying from 3.0 ± 0.4 nm in native collagen to 7.70 ± 0.6 nm in GL5), and decreased elasticity (Young's modulus dropping from 34.8 ± 5.4 MPa to 2.07 ± 0.3 MPa in GL5). These physical alterations appear to facilitate rapid initial cell attachment while potentially compromising long-term stable adhesion through traditional integrin-mediated mechanisms. This study provides novel insights into the complex dynamics of MSC adhesion to glycated collagen, revealing previously unknown temporal patterns and challenging existing models of cell-matrix interactions. The findings suggest a need for revised approaches in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, particularly in conditions where glycated collagen is prevalent.
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.