Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26729284›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2016

Injectable Extracellular Matrix Hydrogels as Scaffolds for Spinal Cord Injury Repair.

Dmitry Tukmachev, Serhiy Forostyak, Zuzana Koci, Kristyna Zaviskova, Irena Vackova, Karel Vyborny, Ioanna Sandvig, Axel Sandvig, Christopher J Medberry, Stephen F Badylak and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed
18.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 157 citations in OpenAlex.

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

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Dmitry Tukmachev1 Institute of Experimental Medicine AS CR , Prague, Czech Republic .
Serhiy Forostyak1 Institute of Experimental Medicine AS CR , Prague, Czech Republic .
Zuzana Koci1 Institute of Experimental Medicine AS CR , Prague, Czech Republic .
Kristyna Zaviskova1 Institute of Experimental Medicine AS CR , Prague, Czech Republic .
Irena Vackova1 Institute of Experimental Medicine AS CR , Prague, Czech Republic .
Karel Vyborny1 Institute of Experimental Medicine AS CR , Prague, Czech Republic .
Ioanna Sandvig3 Department of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology , Trondheim, Norway .
Axel Sandvig3 Department of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology , Trondheim, Norway .
Christopher J Medberry6 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Stephen F Badylak6 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Eva Sykova1 Institute of Experimental Medicine AS CR , Prague, Czech Republic .
Sarka Kubinova1 Institute of Experimental Medicine AS CR , Prague, Czech Republic .
Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Experimental Medicine · CZCharles University · CZMcGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine · USNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Restoration of lost neuronal function after spinal cord injury (SCI) still remains a big challenge for current medicine. One important repair strategy is bridging the SCI lesion with a supportive and stimulatory milieu that would enable axonal rewiring. Injectable extracellular matrix (ECM)-derived hydrogels have been recently reported to have neurotrophic potential in vitro. In this study, we evaluated the presumed neuroregenerative properties of ECM hydrogels in vivo in the acute model of SCI. ECM hydrogels were prepared by decellularization of porcine spinal cord (SC) or porcine urinary bladder (UB), and injected into a spinal cord hemisection cavity. Histological analysis and real-time qPCR were performed at 2, 4, and 8 weeks postinjection. Both types of hydrogels integrated into the lesion and stimulated neovascularization and axonal ingrowth into the lesion. On the other hand, massive infiltration of macrophages into the lesion and rapid hydrogel degradation did not prevent cyst formation, which progressively developed over 8 weeks. No significant differences were found between SC-ECM and UB-ECM. Gene expression analysis revealed significant downregulation of genes related to immune response and inflammation in both hydrogel types at 2 weeks post SCI. A combination of human mesenchymal stem cells with SC-ECM did not further promote ingrowth of axons and blood vessels into the lesion, when compared with the SC-ECM hydrogel alone. In conclusion, both ECM hydrogels bridged the lesion cavity, modulated the innate immune response, and provided the benefit of a stimulatory substrate for in vivo neural tissue regeneration. However, fast hydrogel degradation might be a limiting factor for the use of native ECM hydrogels in the treatment of acute SCI.

Indexed as

Extracellular MatrixMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalHeterograftsHumansHydrogelsMesenchymal Stem CellsSpinal Cord InjuriesSwineHydrogels

Identifiers

PMID26729284
PMCPMC4799710
OpenAlexW2229689447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.