Which of the following was not a conclusion of the EQUicycler case study?

The EQUicycler case study focused on evaluating the effectiveness of the device in applying mechanical strain to cell-collagen constructs and its effects on cell behavior.

The first statement indicates that the EQUicycler was effective in transferring equiaxial mechanical strain to the constructs, which aligns with the study's goal of assessing mechanical stimulation's role in tissue engineering. This reflects the purpose of the device and its functional capabilities.

The second statement highlights the ability of the EQUicycler to maintain and promote cell viability over extended periods. This is critical in tissue engineering since sustained cell health is necessary for the successful development of functional tissues.

The third statement emphasizes that the EQUicycler induced morphological changes in the cells, with alignment and elongation due to the applied strain. This is an important aspect of mechanotransduction, where cells respond to mechanical forces, affecting their shape and possibly their function.

Since all three statements reflect significant findings related to the mechanical strain, cell viability, and morphological responses that were likely underscored in the case study, the conclusion that “All of the above were conclusions of the EQUicycler case study,” is correct. Each point aligns with the outcomes that such a case study would aim to validate regarding the performance of the EQUicy