ArticleEuropean radiology2016
Human AAT gene transfer to pig liver improved by using a perfusion isolated organ endovascular procedure.
Article in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delivery of non-viral naked DNA vectors to liver in small weaned pigs by hydrodynamic retrograde intrabiliary injection.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Prolonged Expression of Secreted Enzymes in Dogs After Liver-Directed Delivery of Sleeping Beauty Transposons: Implications for Non-Viral Gene Therapy of Systemic Disease.Human gene therapy · 2017Article
- Studying Closed Hydrodynamic Models of "In Vivo" DNA Perfusion in Pig Liver for Gene Therapy Translation to Humans.PloS one · 2016Article
- Site-Specific Impact of a Regional Hydrodynamic Injection: Computed Tomography Study during Hydrodynamic Injection Targeting the Swine Liver.Pharmaceutics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe efficiency of endovascular liver gene transfer in pigs is evaluated by comparing two models of retrograde catheterization: single lobe catheterization with portal inflow (open procedure) versus whole liver isolation with portal and inferior vena cava blockage (close procedure).
methodsPercutaneous endovascular catheterization was performed in pigs. Open procedure (n = 3): 8Fr balloon catheter placement in a suprahepatic branch through the jugular vein. Closed procedure (n = 3): simultaneous catheterization of the intrahepatic portal vein (transhepatic catheterization, 10Fr balloon catheter), the supra- and infrahepatic cava veins (8Fr balloon catheters through the jugular and femoral veins). In both models, 200 ml of hAAT DNA solution (20 μg/ml) were retrogradely injected at 20 ml/s. Tissue samples (8 per liver) were obtained 14 days later and the exogenous DNA, RNA and protein per cell were quantified. Blood samples were collected periodically for transaminase determination in all the animals.
resultsThe open procedure achieved lower (approx. 1000-fold) DNA delivery, resulting in a significantly lower (p < 0.001) gene transcription (> 100-fold). The closed model also achieved a higher translation index, although differences were smaller (p < 0.001).
conclusionsPortal inflow blockage increased the delivery, transcription and translation indexes, significantly improving the final procedure efficacy when compared with an open procedure. KEY POINTS: Endovascular hydrodynamic pig liver gene transfer: open procedure versus closed procedure. Open procedure resulted in much lower DNA delivery than closed model. Open procedure reached significantly lower gene transcription index. Translation index with closed model was higher than with the open.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.