Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 559

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Animal Models for Cartilage Regeneration and Repair

Open access
Chu, Constance R., Szczodry, Michal, Bruno, Stephen·2010·Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews

Abstract

Articular cartilage injury and degeneration are leading causes of disability. Animal studies are critically important to developing effective treatments for cartilage injuries. This review focuses on the use of animal models for the study of the repair and regeneration of focal cartilage defects. Animals commonly used in cartilage repair studies include murine, lapine, canine, caprine, porcine, and equine models. There are advantages and disadvantages to each model. Small animal rodent and lapine models are cost effective, easy to house, and useful for pilot and proof-of-concept studies. The availability of transgenic and knockout mice provide opportunities for mechanistic in vivo study. Athymic mice and rats are additionally useful for evaluating the cartilage repair potential of human cells and tissues. Their small joint size, thin cartilage, and greater potential for intrinsic healing than humans, however, limit the translational value of small animal models. Large animal models with thicker articular cartilage permit study of both partial thickness and full thickness chondral repair, as well as osteochondral repair. Joint size and cartilage thickness for canine, caprine, and mini-pig models remain significantly smaller than that of humans. The repair and regeneration of chondral and osteochondral defects of size and volume comparable to that of clinically significant human lesions can be reliably studied primarily in equine models. While larger animals may more closely approximate the human clinical situation, they carry greater logistical, financial, and ethical considerations. A multifactorial analysis of each animal model should be carried out when planning in vivo studies. Ultimately, the scientific goals of the study will be critical in determining the appropriate animal model.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0452

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Cited by

See all 559

Metadata

Authors
Chu, C. R., Szczodry, M., & Bruno, S.
Venue
Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews
Published
2010-02
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
105-115
ISSN
  • 1937-3368 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-3376
OpenAlex
W2024376207
Cited by
559
References
49
FWCI
9.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Animal Models for Cartilage Regeneration and Repair. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0452
The paper
Chu, C. R., Szczodry, M., & Bruno, S. (2010). Animal Models for Cartilage Regeneration and Repair. Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0452

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.