ABSTRACT
Circular RNA (circRNA) is a type of single-stranded RNA that binds in a closed loop structure by covalent bond. It is highly expressed and has diverse functions in the eukaryotic transcriptome, and it also has the potential to regulate the process of cell differentiation. Stem cells are important seed cells and common research tools in the field of tissue engineering, which have multi-directional differentiation potential and low immunogenicity. Its clinical application for the treatment of diseases has broad prospects, and the research on their differentiation mechanism has gradually penetrated to the molecular level. A number of studies have shown that circRNA participates in stem cell differentiation and plays a key role through a variety of pathways. This article focuses on the expression changes of circRNA during stem cell differentiation and its research advancement in regulating the differentiation mechanism of various stem cells. The review also prospects its possible role in tissue regeneration and repair, in order to further study the molecular mechanism of circRNA involved in stem cell differentiation and provide ideas for clinical practice of stem cells in biomedical engineering.
Subject(s)
Cell Differentiation , RNA , RNA, Circular , Stem Cells , Tissue Engineering , TranscriptomeABSTRACT
<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>A large amount of biomechanical and clinical evidence from previous studies suggest the efficiency of the two different posterior lumber non-fusion methods, interspinous distraction device (ISDD) and facet screw fixation system (FSS), but the biomechanical comparison of ISDD and FSS has not been thoroughly clarified.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>In the current study, finite element methods were used to investigate the biomechanical comparison of ISDD and FSS. The range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure (IDP) and the protective effects gained by maintaining disc heights were evaluated.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The ROM was similar between the two non-fusion methods under static standing, flexion and lateral bending. The FSS appeared to be more effective in resisting extension. At the implanted level L3/4, FSS displayed better results for maintaining and increasing posterior disc heights. At the L4/5 level in extension and lateral bending, FSS was better than ISDD, with comparable results observed in other motions. Comparing the posterior and lateral disc heights, FSS appeared to be more effective than ISDD. FSS also had a minor effect on the inferior adjacent segment than ISDD. FSS was more effective in reducing IDP than ISDD in extension.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Through the finite element analysis study, it can be seen that FSS demonstrates more beneficial biomechanical outcomes than does ISDD, such as being more effective in resisting extension, maintaining and increasing lumbar disc heights and reducing the inferior adjacent IDP in extension.</p>