ArticleJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2012
Central zone of myocardial infarction: a neglected target area for heart cell therapy.
Article in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to Overcome the Barrier of Ischemic Microenvironment in Cell Therapy of Cardiovascular Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Fused X-ray and MR imaging guidance of intrapericardial delivery of microencapsulated human mesenchymal stem cells in immunocompetent swine.Radiology · 2014Article
- Intraoperative stem cell therapy.Annual review of biomedical engineering · 2012Review
- Experimental acute myocardial infarction: telocytes involvement in neo-angiogenesis.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the fate of transplanted cells in the central zone of myocardial infarction (MI), and to clarify the relationship between the injection-site impact and the efficacy of cell therapy. MI was created by coronary ligation in female rats. Three weeks later, 3-million labelled male bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) were directly injected into the border (BZC group) or central zone (CZC group) of MI area. As a control, culture medium was injected into the same sites. Cell survival was evaluated by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction, and apoptosis was assayed with TUNEL and caspase-3 staining. Four weeks after transplantation, heart function and cardiac morphometry were evaluated by echocardiography and Masson's Trichrome staining, respectively. Angiogenesis and myogenesis were detected by immunofluorescence staining. After cell transplantation into the border or central zone, there was no cell migration between the different zones of MI. BMSCs in the CZC group exhibited no difference in apoptotic percentage, in the long-term survival, when compared with those in the BZC group. However, they did effectively promote angiogenesis and cellular myogenic differentiation. Although cell delivery in the central zone of MI had no effect on the recovery of heart function compared with the BZC group, the retained BMSCs could still increase the scar thickness, and subsequently exhibit a trend in the reverse remodelling of ventricular dilation. Hence, we concluded that the central zone of MI should not be ignored during cell-based therapy. Multiple site injection (border+central zone) is strongly recommended during the procedure of cell transplantation.
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.