ArticleThe American journal of pathology2008
Long-term survival of transplanted stem cells in immunocompetent mice with muscular dystrophy.
Article in The American journal of pathology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Engraftment and Satellite Cell Expansion from Human PSC Teratoma-Derived Myogenic Progenitors.Cells · 2025Article
- Enhanced Diaphragm Muscle Function upon Satellite Cell Transplantation in Dystrophic Mice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Duchenne muscular dystrophy: disease mechanism and therapeutic strategies.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
- Recovery from rat sciatic nerve injury in vivo through the use of differentiated MDSCs in vitro.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2013Article
- The application of three-dimensional collagen-scaffolds seeded with myoblasts to repair skeletal muscle defects.Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology · 2011Article
- Prevention of muscle aging by myofiber-associated satellite cell transplantation.Science translational medicine · 2010Article
- Mature adult dystrophic mouse muscle environment does not impede efficient engrafted satellite cell regeneration and self-renewal.Stem cells (Dayton, Ohio) · 2009Article
- Sarcoglycanopathies: molecular pathogenesis and therapeutic prospects.Expert reviews in molecular medicine · 2009Review
- Modern approaches to pediatric brain injury therapy.The Journal of trauma · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Satellite cells refer to resident stem cells in muscle that are activated in response to damage or disease for the regeneration and repair of muscle fibers. The use of stem cell transplantation to treat muscular diseases has been limited by impaired donor cell survival attributed to rejection and an unavailable stem cell niche. We isolated a population of adult muscle mononuclear cells (AMMCs) from normal, strain-matched muscle and transplanted these cells into delta-sarcoglycan-null dystrophic mice. Distinct from other transplant studies, the recipient mice were immunocompetent with an intact endogenous satellite cell pool. We found that AMMCs were 35 times more efficient at restoring sarcoglycan compared with cultured myoblasts. Unlike cultured myoblasts, AMMC-derived muscle fibers expressed sarcoglycan protein throughout their entire length, consistent with enhanced migratory ability. We examined the capacity of single injections of AMMCs to provide long-term benefit for muscular dystrophy and found persistent regeneration after 6 months, consistent with augmentation of the endogenous stem cell pool. Interestingly, AMMCs were more effectively engrafted into aged dystrophic mice for the regeneration of large clusters of sarcoglycan-positive muscle fibers, which were protected from damage, suggesting that the stem cell niche in older muscle remains permissive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.