|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Research Reports |
nspielholz@adelphia.net
| Because this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the full text and any section headings. |
| Introduction |
|---|
The literature contains conflicting reports about whether fibroblasts on glass slides migrate in a direct current (DC) field or not. Like these authors, previous researchers1 also reported they do not, but other researchers25 have reported they do. Workers in this area will have to sort this out. My disagreements with this article are quite different. First, and most importantly, I will address various aspects of the authors claim that "The model of wound closure [used in this study] is well accepted to mimic wound healing in vitro." I argue that
| The Model Is Not One of a Wound or Wound Healing |
|---|
| Contrasting the Authors Interpretation of Their Findings of Nonmigration With the Interpretations of Other Authors Who Also Reported Nonmigration |
|---|
| How the Authors Explain the "Weaknesses" of Other Reports That Fibroblasts Do Migrate in an Electrical Field |
|---|
Related Article
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |