2014
DOI: 10.5152/niche.2013.162
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mesenchymal Stem Cells (Mscs) in Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) World

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
3
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
2
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The increase in the diameter of the cells was directly proportional to the days of the differentiation, from 2 µm in day 9 to~30 µm in day 21. This was supported by previous reports that used SEM to further confirm the differentiation of MSCs [27,28].…”
Section: Differentiation Of Imscs Into Pdgfrα-positive Cellssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The increase in the diameter of the cells was directly proportional to the days of the differentiation, from 2 µm in day 9 to~30 µm in day 21. This was supported by previous reports that used SEM to further confirm the differentiation of MSCs [27,28].…”
Section: Differentiation Of Imscs Into Pdgfrα-positive Cellssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…In addition, cells in P 9 maintained their spindle shape (Figure 4). These SEM results were also reported [49].…”
Section: Scanning Electron Microscope (Sem)supporting
confidence: 83%
“…Moreover, SEM showed that hMSCs adhere to PEEK with an irregular and contracted morphology that is retained also after 21 days in both OM and CM, regardless positive proliferation. Observed morphology is quite different from what displayed under conventional 2D surfaces [ 21 ], where cellular extensions and pseudopods arising from each cell and extending through each other have been reported, suggesting the contribution of the material, together with the surface architecture, to altered morphology. Notably, in OM, more resembling the in vivo presence of factors able to support bone cells and bone growth, hMSCs cultured on PEEK not only showed absence of proliferation, but a reduction in number and viability and a very poor response in terms of osteogenic commitment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 61%