Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27014802›Full record

ReviewHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2016

Assessing the therapeutic potential of lab-made hepatocytes.

Milad Rezvani, Andrew A Grimm, Holger Willenbring

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Evidence forbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Regenerative medicine technologies applied to transplant medicine. An update.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Milad RezvaniEli and Edythe Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Andrew A GrimmDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Holger WillenbringEli and Edythe Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

UCSF Liver Core CenterP30DK026743 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Holger Willenbring · 1986 to 2026
$30.7M
TRAINING PROGRAM IN PEDIATRIC GASTROENTEROLOGY/NUTRITIONT32DK007762 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI James Bayrer · 1998 to 2026
$7.3M
Myofibroblast-to-hepatocyte conversion as a therapy for alcoholic liver diseaseR21AA022158 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI WILLENBRING, HOLGER · 2013 to 2014
$408k
NIAAA NIH HHS R21 AA022158NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK026743NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007762
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hepatocyte transplantation has potential as a bridge or even alternative to whole-organ liver transplantation. Because donor livers are scarce, realizing this potential requires the development of alternative cell sources. To be therapeutically effective, surrogate hepatocytes must replicate the complex function and ability to proliferate of primary human hepatocytes. Ideally, they are also autologous to eliminate the need for immune suppression, which can have severe side effects and may not be sufficient to prevent rejection long term. In the past decade, several methods have been developed to generate hepatocytes from other readily and safely accessible somatic cells. These lab-made hepatocytes show promise in animal models of liver diseases, supporting the feasibility of autologous liver cell therapies. Here, we review recent preclinical studies exemplifying different types of lab-made hepatocytes that can potentially be used in autologous liver cell therapies. To define the therapeutic efficacy of current lab-made hepatocytes, we compare them to primary human hepatocytes, focusing on engraftment efficiency and posttransplant proliferation and function. In addition to summarizing published results, we discuss animal models and assays effective in assessing therapeutic efficacy. This analysis underscores the therapeutic potential of current lab-made hepatocytes, but also highlights deficiencies and uncertainties that need to be addressed in future studies aimed at developing liver cell therapies with lab-made hepatocytes. (Hepatology 2016;64:287-294).

Indexed as

Cell- and Tissue-Based TherapyHepatocytesAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID27014802
PMCPMC5316561
OpenAlexW2311496492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.