Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25278840›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2014

Neural precursor cells in the ischemic brain - integration, cellular crosstalk, and consequences for stroke recovery.

Dirk M Hermann, Luca Peruzzotti-Jametti, Jana Schlechter, Joshua D Bernstock, Thorsten R Doeppner, Stefano Pluchino

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Role of Stem Cells in the Therapy of Stroke.Current neuropharmacology · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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.

Dirk M HermannChair of Vascular Neurology, Dementia and Cognitive Health of the Elderly, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Essen Essen, Germany.
Luca Peruzzotti-JamettiJohn van Geest Centre for Brain Repair, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge Cambridge, UK.
Jana SchlechterChair of Vascular Neurology, Dementia and Cognitive Health of the Elderly, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Essen Essen, Germany.
Joshua D BernstockJohn van Geest Centre for Brain Repair, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge Cambridge, UK.
Thorsten R DoeppnerChair of Vascular Neurology, Dementia and Cognitive Health of the Elderly, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Essen Essen, Germany.
Stefano PluchinoJohn van Geest Centre for Brain Repair, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge Cambridge, UK.

Funding

European Research Council 260511
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After an ischemic stroke, neural precursor cells (NPCs) proliferate within major germinal niches of the brain. Endogenous NPCs subsequently migrate toward the ischemic lesion where they promote tissue remodeling and neural repair. Unfortunately, this restorative process is generally insufficient and thus unable to support a full recovery of lost neurological functions. Supported by solid experimental and preclinical data, the transplantation of exogenous NPCs has emerged as a potential tool for stroke treatment. Transplanted NPCs are thought to act mainly via trophic and immune modulatory effects, thereby complementing the restorative responses initially executed by the endogenous NPC population. Recent studies have attempted to elucidate how the therapeutic properties of transplanted NPCs vary depending on the route of transplantation. Systemic NPC delivery leads to potent immune modulatory actions, which prevent secondary neuronal degeneration, reduces glial scar formation, diminishes oxidative stress and stabilizes blood-brain barrier integrity. On the contrary, local stem cell delivery allows for the accumulation of large numbers of transplanted NPCs in the brain, thus achieving high levels of locally available tissue trophic factors, which may better induce a strong endogenous NPC proliferative response. Herein we describe the diverse capabilities of exogenous (systemically vs. locally transplanted) NPCs in enhancing the endogenous neurogenic response after stroke, and how the route of transplantation may affect migration, survival, bystander effects and integration of the cellular graft. It is the authors' claim that understanding these aspects will be of pivotal importance in discerning how transplanted NPCs exert their therapeutic effects in stroke.

Indexed as

blood–brain barrierbrain plasticitycell therapyneurogenesisneuroprotectionstroke

Identifiers

PMID25278840
PMCPMC4165213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.