ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Transcriptomic analysis of bone transport reveals different functions between both ends.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bone fractures are common in both young and elderly populations, and bone transport surgery is a critical orthopedic procedure for patients with severe fractures, bone defects, and non-unions. However, the specific molecular mechanisms driving bone healing during bone transport, particularly the roles of compressive and tensile ends, remain poorly understood. Methods: We utilized transcriptomic analysis of bone tissues from a rat bone transport model to explore differential gene expression patterns associated with compressive and tensile ends. Results: 233 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified in the tensile end (TE) group and 317 DEGs in the compressive end (CE) group, compared to the control group. These DEGs were enriched in distinct biological processes. The TE group was primarily associated with bone healing processes such as ossification, extracellular matrix organization, and bone development. Key genes in the TE group, including Bglap, Acan, Mmp13, and Runx2, were upregulated, highlighting their roles in osteogenesis. In contrast, the CE group showed enrichment in processes related to myogenesis, such as muscle system processes and skeletal muscle tissue development. Core genes in the CE group, including Chrna1, Chrnd, Myod1, and Rps6kb1, were upregulated, indicating a focus on myogenesis and its indirect impact on bone healing. Notably, 15 DEGs were shared between the TE and CE groups, with consistent expression trends, suggesting partially overlapping molecular mechanisms in bone healing under different mechanical ends. Conclusion: These findings provided insights into the distinct and shared molecular pathways involved in bone regeneration during bone transport and could inform targeted therapeutic strategies to enhance bone healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.