Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25712391›Full record

ArticleActa biomaterialia2015

Bone tissue engineering via human induced pluripotent, umbilical cord and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in rat cranium.

Ping Wang, Xian Liu, Liang Zhao, Michael D Weir, Jirun Sun, Wenchuan Chen, Yi Man, Hockin H K Xu

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta biomaterialia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.4field-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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ping WangBiomaterials & Tissue Engineering Division, Department of Endodontics Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, University of Maryland Dental School, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Xian LiuBiomaterials & Tissue Engineering Division, Department of Endodontics Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, University of Maryland Dental School, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Liang ZhaoBiomaterials & Tissue Engineering Division, Department of Endodontics Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, University of Maryland Dental School, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, China. Electronic address: lzhaonf@126.com.
Michael D WeirBiomaterials & Tissue Engineering Division, Department of Endodontics Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, University of Maryland Dental School, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
Jirun SunDr. Anthony Volpe Research Center, American Dental Association Foundation, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.
Wenchuan ChenBiomaterials & Tissue Engineering Division, Department of Endodontics Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, University of Maryland Dental School, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Yi ManState Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Hockin H K XuBiomaterials & Tissue Engineering Division, Department of Endodontics Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, University of Maryland Dental School, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; University of Maryland Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA. Electronic address: hxu@umaryland.edu.
Sichuan University · CNUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USAmerican Dental Association · USUniversity of Maryland Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center

Funding

Injectable and Strong Nano-Apatite/Stem Cell Scaffolds for Bone RegenerationR01DE014190 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI XU, HUAKUN · 2003 to 2013
$3.4M
Novel Dental Resin Composites with Improved Service LifeU01DE023752 · NIDCR · AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION · PI SUN, JIRUN · 2013 to 2017
$2.2M
Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Calcium Phosphate Constructs for Bone RegenerationR21DE022625 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI XU, HUAKUN · 2012 to 2013
$413k
Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NISTNIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE014190NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE14190NIDCR NIH HHS R21 DE022625NIDCR NIH HHS R21 DE22625NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE023752
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) are an exciting cell source with great potential for tissue engineering. Human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (hBMSCs) have been used in clinics but are limited by several disadvantages, hence alternative sources of MSCs such as umbilical cord MSCs (hUCMSCs) are being investigated. However, there has been no report comparing hiPSCs, hUCMSCs and hBMSCs for bone regeneration. The objectives of this pilot study were to investigate hiPSCs, hUCMSCs and hBMSCs for bone tissue engineering, and compare their bone regeneration via seeding on biofunctionalized macroporous calcium phosphate cement (CPC) in rat cranial defects. For all three types of cells, approximately 90% of the cells remained alive on CPC scaffolds. Osteogenic genes were up-regulated, and mineral synthesis by cells increased with time in vitro for all three types of cells. The new bone area fractions at 12weeks (mean±sd; n=6) were (30.4±5.8)%, (27.4±9.7)% and (22.6±4.7)% in hiPSC-MSC-CPC, hUCMSC-CPC and hBMSC-CPC respectively, compared to (11.0±6.3)% for control (p<0.05). No significant differences were detected among the three types of stem cells (p>0.1). New blood vessel density was higher in cell-seeded groups than control (p<0.05). De novo bone formation and participation by implanted cells was confirmed via immunohistochemical staining. In conclusion, (1) hiPSCs, hUCMSCs and hBMSCs greatly enhanced bone regeneration, more than doubling the new bone amount of cell-free CPC control; (2) hiPSC-MSCs and hUCMSCs represented viable alternatives to hBMSCs; (3) biofunctionalized macroporous CPC-stem cell constructs had a robust capacity for bone regeneration.

Indexed as

AnimalsBone and BonesBone CementsBone Marrow CellsCalcium PhosphatesCell DifferentiationCell SurvivalHumansImmunohistochemistryInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsMaleMesenchymal Stem CellsOsteogenesisRats, NudeSkullTissue EngineeringBone Cementscalcium phosphateCalcium PhosphatesBone marrow stem cellsBone regenerationCalcium phosphate scaffoldInduced pluripotent stem cellsUmbilical cord stem cells

Identifiers

PMID25712391
PMCPMC4666020
OpenAlexW2038934992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.