Carbon dot composite powders show long phosphorescence lifetimes when the carbon dots are dispersed into a potash alum matrix.

N-doped CDs can be obtained directly with high yield by pyrolyzing ethanolamine in air within just 7 minutes with the assistance of hydrogen peroxide.

Runx2 was identified as a novel direct target of miR-105. FGF2 inhibits miR-105 transcription through recruitment of p65 to miR-105 promoter. p65/miR-105 is essential for FGF2-mediated Runx2 and ADAMTS upregulation. miR-105 is downregulated in OA and inversely correlated with Runx2 expression.

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been considered a promising tool for cartilage regeneration. However, increasing evidence has demonstrated the controversial effects of PRP on tissue regeneration, partially due to the unsatisfactory cell source. Chondrogenic progenitor cells (CPCs) have gained increasing attention as a potential cell source due to their self-renewal and multipotency, especially toward the chondrogenic lineage, and, thus, may be an appropriate alternative for cartilage engineering. Purpose: To compare the effects of PRP on CPC, mesenchymal stem cell (MSC), and chondrocyte proliferation, chondrogenesis, and cartilage regeneration. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Whole blood samples were obtained from 5 human donors to create PRPs (0, 1000 × 109, and 2000 × 109 platelets per liter). The proliferation and chondrogenesis of CPCs, bone marrow–derived MSCs (BMSCs), and chondrocytes were evaluated via growth kinetic and CCK-8 assays. Immunofluorescence, cytochemical staining, and gene expression analyses were performed to assess chondrogenic differentiation and cartilaginous matrix formation. The in vivo effects of CPCs, BMSCs, and chondrocytes on cartilage regeneration after PRP treatment were measured by use of histopathological, biochemical, and biomechanical techniques in a cartilage defect model involving mature male New Zealand White rabbits (critical size, 5 mm). Results: The CPCs possessed migration abilities and proliferative capacities superior to those of the chondrocytes, while exhibiting a chondrogenic predisposition stronger than that of the BMSCs. The growth kinetic, CCK-8, cytochemical staining, and biochemical analyses revealed that the CPCs simultaneously displayed a higher cell density than the chondrocytes and stronger chondrogenesis than the BMSCs after PRP stimulation. In addition, the in vivo study demonstrated that the PRP+CPC construct yielded better histological (International Cartilage Repair Society [ICRS] score, mean ± SEM, 1197.2 ± 163.2) and biomechanical (tensile modulus, 1.523 ± 0.194) results than the PRP+BMSC (701.1 ± 104.9, P < .05; 0.791 ± 0.151, P < .05) and PRP+chondrocyte (541.6 ± 98.3, P < .01; 0.587 ± 0.142, P < .01) constructs at 12 weeks after implantation. Conclusion: CPCs exhibit superiority over MSCs and chondrocytes in PRP scaffold-based cartilage regeneration, and PRP+CPC treatment may be a favorable strategy for cartilage repair. Clinical Relevance: These findings provide evidence highlighting the preferable role of CPCs as a cell source in PRP-mediated cartilage regeneration and may help researchers address the problem of unsatisfactory cell sources in cartilage engineering.

Background Arthroscopic double-row suture-anchor fixation and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) are used to treat displaced greater tuberosity fractures, but there are few data that can help guide the surgeon in choosing between these approaches. Questions/Purposes We therefore asked: (1) Is there a difference in surgical time between arthroscopic doublerow suture anchor fixation and ORIF for isolated displaced greater tuberosity fractures? (2) Are there differences in the postoperative ROM and functional scores between arthroscopic double-row suture anchor fixation and ORIF for isolated displaced greater tuberosity fractures? (3) Are there differences in complications resulting in additional operations between the two approaches?Methods Between 2006 and 2012, we treated 79 patients surgically for displaced greater tuberosity fractures. Of those, 32 (41%) were considered eligible for our study based on inclusion criteria for isolated displaced greater tuberosity fractures with a displacement of at least 5 mm but less than 2 cm. During that time, we generally treated patients with displaced greater tuberosity fractures with a displacement greater than 1 cm or with a fragment size greater than 393 cm with open treatment, and patients with displaced greater tuberosity fractures with a displacement less than 1 cm or with a fragment size less than 393 cm with arthroscopic treatment. Fifty-three underwent open treatment based on those indications, and 26 underwent arthroscopic treatment, of whom 17 (32%) and 15 (58%) were available for followup at a mean of 34 months (range, 24-28 months). All patients with such fractures identified from our institutional database were treated by these two approaches and no other methods were used. Surgical time was defined as the time from initiation of the incision to the time when suture of the incision was finished, and was determined by an observer with a stopwatch. Patients were followed up in the outpatient department at 6, 12, and 24 weeks, and every 6 month thereafter. Radiographs showed optimal reduction immediately after surgery and at every followup. Radiographs were obtained to assess fracture healing. Patients were followed up for a mean of 34 months (range, 24-48 months). At the last followup, ROM, VAS score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. All these data were retrieved from our institutional database through chart review. Complications were assessed through chart review by one observer other than the operating surgeon.