Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25637189›Full record

ArticleStem cells translational medicine2015

The dose-effect safety profile of skeletal muscle precursor cell therapy in a dog model of intrinsic urinary sphincter deficiency.

J Koudy Williams, Delrae Eckman, Ashley Dean, Mahmoudreza Moradi, Julie Allickson, J Mark Cline, James J Yoo, Anthony Atala

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cells translational medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

J Koudy WilliamsWake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Department of Pathology, Section on Comparative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; Biomedical Sciences Program, College of Health Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, USA; Imam Reza General Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Science, Kermanshah, Iran kwilliam@wakehealth.edu.
Delrae EckmanWake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Department of Pathology, Section on Comparative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; Biomedical Sciences Program, College of Health Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, USA; Imam Reza General Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Science, Kermanshah, Iran.
Ashley DeanWake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Department of Pathology, Section on Comparative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; Biomedical Sciences Program, College of Health Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, USA; Imam Reza General Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Science, Kermanshah, Iran.
Mahmoudreza MoradiWake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Department of Pathology, Section on Comparative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; Biomedical Sciences Program, College of Health Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, USA; Imam Reza General Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Science, Kermanshah, Iran.
Julie AllicksonWake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Department of Pathology, Section on Comparative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; Biomedical Sciences Program, College of Health Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, USA; Imam Reza General Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Science, Kermanshah, Iran.
J Mark ClineWake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Department of Pathology, Section on Comparative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; Biomedical Sciences Program, College of Health Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, USA; Imam Reza General Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Science, Kermanshah, Iran.
James J YooWake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Department of Pathology, Section on Comparative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; Biomedical Sciences Program, College of Health Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, USA; Imam Reza General Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Science, Kermanshah, Iran.
Anthony AtalaWake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Department of Pathology, Section on Comparative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; Biomedical Sciences Program, College of Health Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, USA; Imam Reza General Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Science, Kermanshah, Iran.
Forest Institute · USKermanshah University of Medical Sciences · IRWake Forest University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Locally injected skeletal muscle precursor cells (skMPCs) integrate into and restore the muscle layers, innervation, vasculature, and function of the sphincter complex in animal models of intrinsic urinary sphincter deficiency (ISD). The goal of the present study was to test the dose-effect safety profile of skMPC therapy in a dog model of ISD. Sphincter deficiency was created in 20 adult female dogs by surgically removing the skeletal muscle layer of the urinary sphincter complex. skMPCs isolated from the hind leg were expanded in culture and injected 4 weeks later into the sphincter complex at a dose of 25 million cells (n = 5), 50 million cells (n = 5), or 100 million cells (n = 5) per milliliter in a 2-ml volume. Five dogs received no sphincter injection. The measures of maximal sphincter pressure, complete blood count, and blood chemistry were performed monthly until their sacrifice at 9 months. At that point, full necropsy was performed to assess the safety of the skMPC injections. Injection of different doses of cells had no effects on the body weight, blood cell count, or kidney or liver function test results (p > .05 among the skMPC doses). Some incidental pathologic features were found in the lower urinary tract in all groups and were most likely associated with repeat catheterization. The maximal urinary sphincter pressure was higher in the 50 million cells per milliliter treatment group than in the other experimental groups (p < .05). The findings of the present study have confirmed that urinary sphincter injection of skMPCs results in no significant local or systemic pathologic features within the dose range that improves sphincter pressures.

Indexed as

Stem Cell TransplantationAllograftsAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalDogsFemaleMyoblasts, SkeletalUrethraUrinary Incontinence, StressMaximal urethral pressurePathologySkeletal muscleStem cellsUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID25637189
PMCPMC4339845
OpenAlexW2124768019

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.