Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25126478›Full record

ReviewBioResearch open access2014

Preconditioning stem cells for in vivo delivery.

Sébastien Sart, Teng Ma, Yan Li

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioResearch open access, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 161 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sébastien SartHydrodynamics Laboratory , CNRS UMR7646, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France .
Teng MaDepartment of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, Florida State University , Tallahassee, Florida.
Yan LiDepartment of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, Florida State University , Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida A&M University - Florida State University College of Engineering · USCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stem cells have emerged as promising tools for the treatment of incurable neural and heart diseases and tissue damage. However, the survival of transplanted stem cells is reported to be low, reducing their therapeutic effects. The major causes of poor survival of stem cells in vivo are linked to anoikis, potential immune rejection, and oxidative damage mediating apoptosis. This review investigates novel methods and potential molecular mechanisms for stem cell preconditioning in vitro to increase their retention after transplantation in damaged tissues. Microenvironmental preconditioning (e.g., hypoxia, heat shock, and exposure to oxidative stress), aggregate formation, and hydrogel encapsulation have been revealed as promising strategies to reduce cell apoptosis in vivo while maintaining biological functions of the cells. Moreover, this review seeks to identify methods of optimizing cell dose preparation to enhance stem cell survival and therapeutic function after transplantation.

Indexed as

aggregate formationencapsulationhydrogelpreconditioningstem cells

Identifiers

PMID25126478
PMCPMC4120806
OpenAlexW2139282088

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.