Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26696415›Full record

ArticleStem cell research & therapy2015

Comparison of intraspinal and intrathecal implantation of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural precursors for the treatment of spinal cord injury in rats.

Takashi Amemori, Jiri Ruzicka, Nataliya Romanyuk, Meena Jhanwar-Uniyal, Eva Sykova, Pavla Jendelova

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cell research & therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Rewiring the Spine-Cutting-Edge Stem Cell Therapies for Spinal Cord Repair.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Cell transplantation to repair the injured spinal cord.International review of neurobiology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Takashi AmemoriDepartment of Neuroscience, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Videnska 1083, 142 20, Prague 4, Czech Republic. amemori@biomed.cas.cz.
Jiri RuzickaDepartment of Neuroscience, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Videnska 1083, 142 20, Prague 4, Czech Republic. j.ruzicka@biomed.cas.cz.
Nataliya RomanyukDepartment of Neuroscience, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Videnska 1083, 142 20, Prague 4, Czech Republic. romanyuk@biomed.cas.cz.
Meena Jhanwar-UniyalDepartment of Neurosurgery, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, 10595, USA. meena.jhanwar1@gmail.com.
Eva SykovaDepartment of Neuroscience, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Videnska 1083, 142 20, Prague 4, Czech Republic. sykova@biomed.cas.cz.
Pavla JendelovaDepartment of Neuroscience, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Videnska 1083, 142 20, Prague 4, Czech Republic. jendel@biomed.cas.cz.
Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Experimental Medicine · CZCharles University · CZNew York Medical College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStem cell treatment provides a promising therapy for patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the applied stem cells exert their effects in different manners that are dependent on the route used for administration.

methodsIn the present study, we administered neural precursors derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS-NPs) either intraspinally into the lesion center or intrathecally into the subarachnoid space of rats with a balloon-induced spinal cord compression lesion. Functional locomotor performance, cell survival, astrogliosis, axonal sprouting and the expression of endogenous neurotrophic growth factors were evaluated using behavioral tests (BBB, flat beam test, rotarod, plantar test), morphometric analysis, immunohistochemistry and qPCR.

resultsBoth treatments facilitated the functional locomotor recovery of rats with SCI. iPS-NPs injected intraspinally survived well for 2 months and were positive for MAP2, while cells grafted intrathecally were undetectable at the site of administration or in the spinal cord tissue. Intraspinal implantation increased gray and white matter sparing and axonal sprouting and reduced astrogliosis, while intrathecal application resulted only in an improvement of white matter sparing and an increase in axonal sprouting, in parallel with no positive effect on the expression of endogenous neurotrophic growth factor genes or glial scar reduction.

conclusionsIntrathecally grafted iPS-NPs had a moderate therapeutic benefit on SCI through a paracrine mechanism that does not require the cells to be present in the tissue; however, the extended survival of i.s. grafted cells in the spinal cord may promote long-term spinal cord tissue regeneration.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell DifferentiationCell SurvivalInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsInjections, SpinalLocomotionMaleNerve RegenerationNerve Tissue ProteinsNeural Stem CellsParacrine CommunicationRatsRats, WistarSpinal Cord InjuriesNerve Tissue Proteins

Identifiers

PMID26696415
PMCPMC4688936
OpenAlexW2205712657

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.