1,730,265 research outputs found
Letterhead of Tom B. Saunders & Co. Cattle Buyers and Brokers
No full textLetterhead for Tom B. Saunders & Co. Cattle Buyers and Brokers. Fort Worth, Texas. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Photograph of Benk Green and Tom B. Saunders III at Saunders Ranch Museum
No full textPhotograph at the Saunders Ranch Museum of author Benk Green and Tom B. Saunders III
Jane Venita Saunders, 9, and Tom B. Saunders, 7
No full textJane Venita Saunders, 9, and Tom B. Saunders, 7.https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/specialcollections_startelegram1940s/13606/thumbnail.jp
In vitro comparison of equine cancellous bone graft donor sites and tibial periosteum as sources of viable osteoprogenitors
No full textPresented at the American College of Veterinary Surgeons 11th Annual Veterinary Symposium, 2001, Chicago, IL, and the Veterinary Orthopedic Society 29th Annual Conference, 2002, Park City, UT.Objective— To compare the osteogenic potential of cancellous bone of conventional graft sites with that of one nonconventional site (fourth coccygeal vertebra) and to investigate the tibial periosteum as a donor site with respect to osteogenic potential.Study Design— In vitro osteogenic cell culture system.Sample Population— Eight adult horses.Methods— Cancellous bone or tibial periosteum was aseptically collected and cut into bone chips or periosteal strips of 1 to 2 mm3 for primary explant cultures. After 2 weeks, primary tissue cultures that yielded a population of osteogenic cells were counted and subcultured at 1 × 105 cells/35‐mm dish in osteogenic media. After 7 to 10 days, subcultures were stained with Von Kossa (VK) to assess mineralized bone nodule formation. VK‐positive bone nodules were counted as osteoprogenitors and compared among 3 donor sites, which provided consistent primary osteogenic cells (tuber coxae, fourth coccygeal vertebra, periosteum) using ANOVA (P < .05).Results— Sternal and tibial bone yielded viable osteogenic cells from 25% and 50% of horses, respectively, whereas yields from tuber coxae, coccygeal vertebra, and periosteum were 75%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Tuber coxae and periosteum had significantly greater numbers of osteoprogenitors compared with fourth coccygeal vertebra.Conclusions— Among the conventional donor sites, tuber coxae most consistently yielded viable osteogenic cells with an acceptable percentage of osteoprogenitors. Sternal and tibial sites were unreliable in providing osteogenic cells. Two new donor sites, the fourth coccygeal vertebra and tibial periosteum, were tissues with good osteogenic potential.Clinical Relevance— When a source of transplantable viable osteoprogenitor cells is desired, use of the tuber coxae as a conventional donor site is warranted. Use of tibial periosteum or fourth coccygeal vertebra as reliable sources of transplantable osteoprogenitors should be considered.</jats:p
TCU Building Fund pledge from Jane Venita and Tom B. Saunders
No full textTCU Building Fund Pledge of $100 from Jane Venita and Tom B. Saunders signed by Ed Winton
[Correspondence between Meyer Bodansky and Dr. W. B. Saunders - July 27, 1926]
No full textCorrespondence between Dr. Meyer Bodansky and Dr. W. B. Saunders dated July 27, 1926, seeking permission to use information from Dr. Saunder's publications in Dr. Bodansky's upcoming textbook
[Letter from Meyer Bodansky to the W. B. Saunders Company - March 1939]
No full textLetter from Dr. Meyer Bodansky to the W. B. Saunders Company requesting that copies of two new textbooks be sent to him at his university. Bodansky also requests that a book be sent to his son in New York
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Saunders Ranch Museum with Jane Saunders Calhoun, James M. Calhoun, Ann Osborne Saunders, and Tom B. Saunders IV
No full textBlack and white photograph inside the Saunders Ranch Museum. Left to right: Jane Saunders Calhoun, James M. Calhoun, Ann Osborne Saunders, and Tom B. Saunders I
- …
