Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26504774›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2015

In Vitro Evaluation of Scaffolds for the Delivery of Mesenchymal Stem Cells to Wounds.

Elizabeth A Wahl, Fernando A Fierro, Thomas R Peavy, Ursula Hopfner, Julian F Dye, Hans-Günther Machens, José T Egaña, Thilo L Schenck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Experimental research on ADSCs-NCSS in wound repair.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Multidisciplinary approaches to stimulate wound healing.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2016
    Review
  19. Article
  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

8 authors.

Elizabeth A WahlDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Fernando A FierroInstitute for Regenerative Cures, UC Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.
Thomas R PeavyDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819, USA.
Ursula HopfnerDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Julian F DyeInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, UCL, The Royal Institution, London W1S 4BS, UK.
Hans-Günther MachensDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
José T EgañaDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany ; FONDAP Center for Genome Regulation, Faculty of Sciences, University of Chile, 7800024 Santiago, Chile.
Thilo L SchenckDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been shown to improve tissue regeneration in several preclinical and clinical trials. These cells have been used in combination with three-dimensional scaffolds as a promising approach in the field of regenerative medicine. We compare the behavior of human adipose-derived MSCs (AdMSCs) on four different biomaterials that are awaiting or have already received FDA approval to determine a suitable regenerative scaffold for delivering these cells to dermal wounds and increasing healing potential. AdMSCs were isolated, characterized, and seeded onto scaffolds based on chitosan, fibrin, bovine collagen, and decellularized porcine dermis. In vitro results demonstrated that the scaffolds strongly influence key parameters, such as seeding efficiency, cellular distribution, attachment, survival, metabolic activity, and paracrine release. Chick chorioallantoic membrane assays revealed that the scaffold composition similarly influences the angiogenic potential of AdMSCs in vivo. The wound healing potential of scaffolds increases by means of a synergistic relationship between AdMSCs and biomaterial resulting in the release of proangiogenic and cytokine factors, which is currently lacking when a scaffold alone is utilized. Furthermore, the methods used herein can be utilized to test other scaffold materials to increase their wound healing potential with AdMSCs.

Indexed as

Skin, ArtificialTissue ScaffoldsCell AdhesionCell ProliferationCells, CulturedCell SurvivalEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisHumansMaterials TestingMesenchymal Stem CellsMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID26504774
PMCPMC4609332

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.