ArticleBone & joint research2026
Comparative osteogenic performance of Chinese hamster ovary cell-derived versus Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is used clinically for bone regeneration. The Food and Drug Administration-approved clinical product (Infuse) is Chinese hamster ovary (CHO)-derived, but Methods: Four EC-derived rhBMP-2 preparations were screened using alkaline phosphatase (ALP) assays in C2C12 and W20-17 cells. The most potent (EC-MAX) was compared to CHO-rhBMP-2. A total of 15 male athymic rats received bilateral absorbable collagen sponge (ACS) implants loaded with 17 µg rhBMP-2 (CHO or EC-MAX) in muscle pouches for four weeks. Bone formation was assessed by radiography, micro-CT, and histology. Results: EC-MAX showed 2.2-fold higher osteogenic activity in W20-17 cells and 1.3-fold in C2C12 cells versus CHO-rhBMP-2. In vivo, EC-MAX produced ~ ten-fold greater bone volume (88.5 mm³ (SD 12.8) vs 9.2 mm³ (SD 5.4)) and tissue volume (203.3 mm³ (SD 47.9) vs 15.0 mm³ (SD 8.8)). Histology confirmed more mature bone architecture in EC-MAX implants with adipocyte-filled marrow spaces. Conclusion: Potency cannot be generalized across products. Inter-supplier potency variation exists among EC-derived rhBMP-2 products. EC-MAX demonstrated superior osteoinductive potential both in vitro and in vivo versus CHO. However, substantial variability highlights the need for product-specific characterization.
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.