Handbook of Imaging in Biological Mechanics

2014 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (06) ◽  
pp. 1402001
Author(s):  
Feng Liu ◽  
Eddie Y. K. Ng
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (06) ◽  
pp. 1502002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng Liu ◽  
Eddie Y. K. Ng ◽  
Zi Chen
Keyword(s):  

Phronesis ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 53 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 406-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Wilberding

AbstractPorphyry's account of the nature of seeds can shed light on some less appreciated details of Neoplatonic psychology, in particular on the interaction between individual souls. The process of producing the seed and the conception of the seed offer a physical instantiation of procession and reversion, activities that are central to Neoplatonic metaphysics. In an act analogous to procession, the seed is produced by the father's nature, and as such it is ontologically inferior to the father's nature. Thus, the seed does not strictly speaking contain a full-fledged vegetative soul. Rather, it acquires its vegetative soul only while it is being actualized by an actual vegetative soul. This actualization takes place primarily at conception, where the seed as it were reverts back and becomes obedient to the mother's nature, but continues through the period of gestation. In this way, Porphyry can account both for maternal resemblance and for ideoplasty. He uses the Stoic language of complete blending to describe the mother's relation to the seed and embryo, and this reveals that he thinks of individuals as having their own unique individual natures (as opposed to sharing in a single universal nature). In the course of developing this theory, Porphyry makes significant revisions to his philosophical predecessors' views in both embryology and botany. He revises Aristotle's verdict on the relative importance of the female in generation as well as Theophrastus' explanation of the biological mechanics of grafting. Although Plotinus nowhere addresses embryology in the same detail as Porphyry does, we can conclude from his remarks on seeds and plants that his own views were similar to those of his student.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 016012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenbin Chen ◽  
Shuang Wu ◽  
Tiancheng Zhou ◽  
Caihua Xiong

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 4065
Author(s):  
Tiziana Fischetti ◽  
Gemma Di Pompo ◽  
Nicola Baldini ◽  
Sofia Avnet ◽  
Gabriela Graziani

Bone cancer, both primary and metastatic, is characterized by a low survival rate. Currently, available models lack in mimicking the complexity of bone, of cancer, and of their microenvironment, leading to poor predictivity. Three-dimensional technologies can help address this need, by developing predictive models that can recapitulate the conditions for cancer development and progression. Among the existing tools to obtain suitable 3D models of bone cancer, 3D printing and bioprinting appear very promising, as they enable combining cells, biomolecules, and biomaterials into organized and complex structures that can reproduce the main characteristic of bone. The challenge is to recapitulate a bone-like microenvironment for analysis of stromal–cancer cell interactions and biological mechanics leading to tumor progression. In this review, existing approaches to obtain in vitro 3D-printed and -bioprinted bone models are discussed, with a focus on the role of biomaterials selection in determining the behavior of the models and its degree of customization. To obtain a reliable 3D bone model, the evaluation of different polymeric matrices and the inclusion of ceramic fillers is of paramount importance, as they help reproduce the behavior of both normal and cancer cells in the bone microenvironment. Open challenges and future perspectives are discussed to solve existing shortcomings and to pave the way for potential development strategies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document