ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Fibronectin- and Bioactive Glass-Modified Alginate Scaffolds Support Limited Primary Cell Proliferation In Vitro yet Demonstrate Effective Host Integration In Vivo.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bone Tissue Engineering: Recent Advances and Translation to Clinical Application.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alginate-hydroxyapatite (AL) scaffolds modified with fibronectin (FN) or bioactive glass (BGMS10) have recently been characterized for their physicochemical properties and proposed as promising candidates for bone regeneration. Here, we present their first systematic biological evaluation, focusing on adhesion, proliferation, osteogenic differentiation, and in vivo host response. We compared FN-, BG-, and unmodified AL scaffolds using an immortalized mesenchymal stromal cell line (M-SOD) and primary human bone marrow-derived (BM-MSCs) and adipose-derived stromal cells (ASCs). FN scaffolds enhanced initial adhesion across all cell types and supported proliferation in M-SODs, but primary BM-MSCs and ASCs showed minimal expansion, regardless of scaffold type. BG scaffolds promoted expression of late-stage osteogenic markers in BM-MSCs, consistent with their ion release profile, but had limited impact on ASCs. In vivo subcutaneous implantation of acellular scaffolds in nude mice revealed robust host cell infiltration and extracellular matrix deposition across all scaffold types, confirming biocompatibility and integration. However, vascularization remained limited and did not differ substantially between formulations. Together, these findings highlight a critical discrepancy between immortalized and primary stromal cell responses to scaffold cues, underscoring the choice of cell source when evaluating the biocompatibility of a novel scaffold. At the same time, the effective in vivo integration observed across scaffold types emphasizes the importance of host tissue responses for translational evaluation of functional biomaterials.
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.