ArticleBiomedical materials (Bristol, England)2016
Recellularized human dermis for testing gene electrotransfer ex vivo.
Article in Biomedical materials (Bristol, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of pulsed electric field technology to skin engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Effect of Experimental Electrical and Biological Parameters on Gene Transfer by Electroporation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Moderate Heat-Assisted Gene Electrotransfer for Cutaneous Delivery of a DNA Vaccine Against Hepatitis B Virus.Human gene therapy · 2021Article
- Growth environment influences B16.F10 mouse melanoma cell response to gene electrotransfer.Bioelectrochemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Vascular regeneration in adult mouse cochlea stimulated by VEGF-AHearing research · 2019Article
- Plasma-activated air mediates plasmid DNA delivery in vivo.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gene electrotransfer (GET) is a proven and valuable tool for in vivo gene delivery to a variety of tissues such as skin, cardiac muscle, skeletal muscle, and tumors, with controllable gene delivery and expression levels. Optimizing gene expression is a challenging hurdle in preclinical studies, particularly for skin indications, due to differences in electrical conductivity of animal compared to human dermis. Therefore, the goal of this study was to develop an ex vivo model for GET using recellularized human dermis to more closely mimic human skin. Decellularized human dermis (DermACELL(®)) was cultured with human dermal fibroblasts and keratinocytes for 4 weeks. After one week of fibroblast culture, fibroblasts infiltrated and dispersed throughout the dermis. Air-liquid interface culture led to epithelial cell proliferation, stratification and terminal differentiation with distinct basal, spinous, granular and cornified strata. Firefly luciferase expression kinetics were evaluated after GET of recellularized constructs for testing gene delivery parameters to skin in vitro. Elevated luciferase expression persisted up to a week following GET compared to controls without electrotransfer. In summary, recellularized dermis structurally and functionally resembled native human skin in tissue histological organization and homeostasis, proving an effective 3D human skin model for preclinical gene delivery studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.