Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24368576›Full record

ReviewHuman cell2014

How to isolate urothelial cells? Comparison of four different methods and literature review.

T Kloskowski, M Uzarska, N Gurtowska, J Olkowska, R Joachimiak, A Bajek, M Gagat, A Grzanka, M Bodnar, A Marszałek and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Human cell, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Construction of Large-Scale Bioengineered Hair Germs and In Vivo Transplantation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

T KloskowskiDepartment of Tissue Engineering, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Karlowicza Str. 24, 85-092, Bydgoszcz, Poland, tomaszkloskowski@op.pl.
M Uzarska
N Gurtowska
J Olkowska
R Joachimiak
A Bajek
M Gagat
A Grzanka
M Bodnar
A Marszałek
T Drewa
Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz · PLNicolaus Copernicus University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to present the comparison of four different methods for urothelial cell isolation and culture and compare them to methods cited in the literature. Four different techniques were examined for urothelium isolation from rat bladders. Isolation effectiveness was calculated using trypan blue assay. Confirmation of isolated cell phenotype and comparison with native bladder tissue was confirmed using immunohistochemical (IHC), immunocytochemical (ICC) and immunofluorescence (IF) analysis. The method with bladder inversion and collagenase P digestion resulted in the highest number of isolated cells. These cells showed positive expression of cytokeratin 7, 8, 18, α6-integrin and p63. Our results and the literature review showed that the best method for urothelium bladder isolation is dissection of the epithelium layer from other bladder parts and digestion of mechanically prepared tissue in a collagenase solution.

Indexed as

AnimalsCells, CulturedCell SeparationCollagenasesIntegrin alpha6Keratin-18Keratin-7Keratin-8MaleRatsRats, WistarRegenerationSolutionsUrinary BladderUrotheliumCollagenasesIntegrin alpha6Keratin-18Keratin-7Keratin-8Solutions

Identifiers

PMID24368576
OpenAlexW2089344048

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.