Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26816621›Full record

ArticleRegenerative biomaterials2014

Counting CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells in the spleen: a novel in vivo method for assessing biomaterial immunotoxicity.

Shyh-Jou Shieh, Prashanth Varkey, Po-Yang Chen, Su-Ya Chang, Lynn L H Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Regenerative biomaterials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Regenerative biomaterials · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Outer membrane proteins ofClinical and experimental vaccine research · 2021
    Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Shyh-Jou ShiehDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Medical College and Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan, Research Center of Excellence in Regenerative Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Advanced Optoelectronic Technology Center, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, International Research Center for Wound Repair and Regeneration (iWRR), National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Institute of Biotechnology, College of Bioscience and Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan and Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Prashanth VarkeyDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Medical College and Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan, Research Center of Excellence in Regenerative Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Advanced Optoelectronic Technology Center, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, International Research Center for Wound Repair and Regeneration (iWRR), National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Institute of Biotechnology, College of Bioscience and Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan and Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Po-Yang ChenDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Medical College and Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan, Research Center of Excellence in Regenerative Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Advanced Optoelectronic Technology Center, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, International Research Center for Wound Repair and Regeneration (iWRR), National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Institute of Biotechnology, College of Bioscience and Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan and Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Su-Ya ChangDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Medical College and Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan, Research Center of Excellence in Regenerative Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Advanced Optoelectronic Technology Center, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, International Research Center for Wound Repair and Regeneration (iWRR), National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Institute of Biotechnology, College of Bioscience and Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan and Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Lynn L H HuangDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Medical College and Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan, Research Center of Excellence in Regenerative Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Advanced Optoelectronic Technology Center, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, International Research Center for Wound Repair and Regeneration (iWRR), National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, Institute of Biotechnology, College of Bioscience and Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan and Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As immunotoxicity assessments of newly developed biomaterials are often restricted to use in assessment of local tissue response at the implantation site, they do not always show an immune response acceptable to qualify them for clinical use. We tested a new method to assess systemic toxicity: counting the CD4(+) and CD8(+) cells in the spleen. Three different biomaterials were subcutaneously implanted in three groups of rats for the same time period. After 31 days, their spleens were harvested, and CD4(+) and CD8(+) cells were counted. The mean CD4(+)/CD8(+) cell counts were 24.5 ± 3.6/19.8 ± 4.0 (porous collagen matrix group), 25.5 ± 7.1/21.6 ± 3.8 [synthetic collagen matrix (Duragen®) group] and 28.1 ± 4.1/19.6 ± 3.7 (porcine dermis group). Differences in cell counts were not significant. The immunotoxic response generated against porous collagen matrix was comparable to that produced by a similar biomaterial already used clinically. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first study on cytotoxic lymphocytes in the spleen to quantify systemic immune response to a biomaterial; however, such studies have been conducted with bacterial and viral antigens, and with vaccines. We believe that the present study provides a viable method for larger studies to confirm our current findings.

Indexed as

collagen matrixcytotoxic lymphocytesflow cytometryimmunotoxicityspleen

Identifiers

PMID26816621
PMCPMC4669000

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.