Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22016413›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2011

Separating spermatogonia from cancer cells in contaminated prepubertal primate testis cell suspensions.

Brian P Hermann, Meena Sukhwani, Jennifer Salati, Yi Sheng, Tianjiao Chu, Kyle E Orwig

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Perspectives: Methods for Evaluating Primate Spermatogonial Stem Cells.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Disease-inducing potential of two leukemic cell lines in a xenografting model.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021
    Article
  7. Spermatogonial Stem Cell Culture in Oncofertility.The Urologic clinics of North America · 2020
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Role of stem cells in fertility preservation: current insights.Stem cells and cloning : advances and applications · 2019
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Process and Pitfalls of Sperm Cryopreservation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brian P HermannDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA.
Meena Sukhwani
Jennifer Salati
Yi Sheng
Tianjiao Chu
Kyle E Orwig
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Characterization of male germline stem cells in a rhesus model of infertilityR01HD055475 · NICHD · MAGEE-WOMEN'S RES INST AND FOUNDATION · PI ORWIG, KYLE EDWIN · 2008 to 2012
$3.5M
Transcriptional regulatory networks in spermatogonial stem cellsR00HD062687 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO · PI HERMANN, BRIAN PETER · 2011 to 2013
$879k
New Fertility Preserving Option for Male Cancer SurvivorsR21HD061289 · NICHD · MAGEE-WOMEN'S RES INST AND FOUNDATION · PI ORWIG, KYLE EDWIN · 2010 to 2011
$425k
Transcriptional regulatory networks in spermatogonial stem cellsK99HD062687 · NICHD · MAGEE-WOMEN'S RES INST AND FOUNDATION · PI HERMANN, BRIAN PETER · 2010 to 2011
$221k
NICHD NIH HHS K99 HD062687NICHD NIH HHS K99/R00 HD062687NICHD NIH HHS R00 HD062687NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD055475NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD061289NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD08160
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChemotherapy and radiation treatments for cancer and other diseases can cause male infertility. There are currently no options to preserve the fertility of prepubertal boys who are not yet making sperm. Cryopreservation of spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs, obtained via testicular biopsy) followed by autologous transplantation back into the testes at a later date may restore fertility in these patients. However, this approach carries an inherent risk of reintroducing cancer.

methodsTo address this aspect of SSC transplantation safety, prepubertal non-human primate testis cell suspensions were inoculated with MOLT4 T-lymphoblastic leukemia cells and subsequently sorted for cell surface markers CD90 (THY-1) and CD45.

resultsCancer cells segregated to the CD90-/CD45+ fraction and produced tumors in nude mice. Nearly all sorted DEAD box polypeptide 4-positive (VASA+) spermatogonia segregated to the CD90+/CD45- fraction. In a preliminary experiment, a purity check of the sorted putative stem cell fraction (CD90+/CD45-) revealed 0.1% contamination with cancer cells, which was sufficient to produce tumors in nude mice. We hypothesized that the contamination resulted from mis-sorting due to cell clumping and employed singlet discrimination (SD) in four subsequent experiments. Purity checks revealed no cancer cell contamination in the CD90+/CD45- fraction from three of the four SD replicates and these fractions produced no tumors when transplanted into nude mouse testes.

conclusionsWe conclude that spermatogonia can be separated from contaminating malignant cells by fluorescence-activated cell sorting prior to SSC transplantation and that post-sorting purity checks are required to confirm elimination of malignant cells.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkers, TumorCell Line, TumorCell SeparationCoculture TechniquesFertility PreservationFlow CytometryHumansMacaca mulattaMaleSexual MaturationSpermatogoniaTestisTissue PreservationBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID22016413
PMCPMC3212882
OpenAlexW2145076165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.