Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25641488›Full record

ReviewXenotransplantation

Review on porcine endogenous retrovirus detection assays--impact on quality and safety of xenotransplants.

Antonia W Godehardt, Michael Rodrigues Costa, Ralf R Tönjes

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Xenotransplantation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT03695939 phase1 / phase2completednot on this map

An Open-label Phase 1/2 Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of realSKIN® (Skin Xenotransplant) for Complete Closure of Severe and Extensive Deep-Partial and Full-Thickness Burn Wounds

TypeinterventionalSponsorXenoTherapeutics, Inc.Ran2019 to 2023Enrolled25ConditionsDeep Full-thickness Burn Injury (Disorder)ArmsrealSKIN (skin xenotransplant), Human Cadaver Allograft
NCT06223269 phase3recruitingnot on this map

A Phase III Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of realSKIN® to Provide Complete Wound Closure of Mixed-Depth, Full-Thickness Burn Wounds as an Alternative to Autografting

TypeinterventionalSponsorXenoTherapeutics, Inc.Ran2024 to 2026Enrolled50ConditionsBurns Degree Third, Burn (Disorder), Burn Degree Second, Thermal BurnArmsSkin Xenotransplant, Autograft(ing)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Contributions of Europeans to Xenotransplantation Research: 1. Pig Organ Xenotransplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025
    Review
  4. Monitoring for PERV Following Xenotransplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Antonia W GodehardtDivision of Medical Biotechnology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen, Germany.
Michael Rodrigues Costa
Ralf R Tönjes
Paul Ehrlich Institut · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Xenotransplantation of porcine organs, tissues, and cells inherits a risk for xenozoonotic infections. Viable tissues and cells intended for transplantation have to be considered as potentially contaminated non-sterile products. The demands on microbial testing, based on the regulatory requirements, are often challenging due to a restricted shelf life or the complexity of the product itself. In Europe, the regulatory framework for xenogeneic cell therapy is based on the advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) regulation (2007), the EMA CHMP Guideline on xenogeneic cell-based medicinal products (2009), as well as the WHO and Council of Europe recommendations. In the USA, FDA guidance for industry (2003) regulates the use of xenotransplants. To comply with the regulations, validated test methods need to be established that reveal the microbial status of a transplant within its given shelf life, complemented by strictly defined action alert limits and supported by breeding in specific pathogen-free (SPF) facilities. In this review, we focus on assays for the detection of the porcine endogenous retroviruses PERV-A/-B/-C, which exhibit highly polymorphic proviral loci in pig genomes. PERVs are transmitted vertically and cannot be completely eliminated by breeding or gene knock out technology. PERVs entail a public health concern that will persist even if no evidence of PERV infection of xenotransplant recipients in vivo has been revealed yet. Nevertheless, infectious risks must be minimized by full assessment of pigs as donors by combining different molecular screening assays for sensitive and specific detection as well as a functional analysis of the infectivity of PERV including an adequate monitoring of recipients.

Indexed as

AnimalsCoculture TechniquesEndogenous RetrovirusesGene Expression ProfilingHumansRetroviridae InfectionsRisk FactorsSequence Analysis, RNASus scrofaTransplantation, Heterologouscocultivationmicroarray analysisporcine endogenous retrovirusRNA-Seqxenotransplantation

Identifiers

PMID25641488
PMCPMC4413356
OpenAlexW2055193011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.