Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27310581›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part C, Methods2016

Comparative Decellularization and Recellularization of Wild-Type and Alpha 1,3 Galactosyltransferase Knockout Pig Lungs: A Model for Ex Vivo Xenogeneic Lung Bioengineering and Transplantation.

Joseph Platz, Nicholas R Bonenfant, Franziska E Uhl, Amy L Coffey, Tristan McKnight, Charles Parsons, Dino Sokocevic, Zachary D Borg, Ying-Wai Lam, Bin Deng and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Engineering Dynamic 3D Models of Lung.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Bioengineering the Blood-gas Barrier.Comprehensive Physiology · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. BioResearch open access · 2020
    Article
  17. Review
  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

19 authors.

Joseph Platz1 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.
Nicholas R Bonenfant1 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.
Franziska E Uhl1 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.
Amy L Coffey1 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.
Tristan McKnight1 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.
Charles Parsons1 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.
Dino Sokocevic1 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.
Zachary D Borg1 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.
Ying-Wai Lam2 Department of Biology and VGN Proteomics Facility, University of Vermont College of Arts and Sciences , Burlington, Vermont.
Bin Deng2 Department of Biology and VGN Proteomics Facility, University of Vermont College of Arts and Sciences , Burlington, Vermont.
Julia G Fields2 Department of Biology and VGN Proteomics Facility, University of Vermont College of Arts and Sciences , Burlington, Vermont.
Michael DeSarno3 Biostatistics Unit, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.
Roberto Loi4 Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Cagliari , Cagliari, Italy .
Andrew M Hoffman5 Department of Clinical Sciences, Tufts University , Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, North Grafton, Massachusetts.
John Bianchi6 Revivicor, Inc. , Blacksburg, Virginia.
Brian Dacken7 Exemplar Genetics, Sioux Center , Iowa.
Thomas Petersen8 United Therapeutics Corp., Research Triangle Park , Durham, North Carolina.
Darcy E Wagner1 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.
Daniel J Weiss1 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine , Burlington, Vermont.

Funding

Vermont INBRE Administrative Supplement 2024 AWD 118P20GM103449 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI CHRISTOPHER S FRANCKLYN · 2012 to 2026
$58.4M
PREPARATION AND DISTRUBUTION OF ADULT STEM CELLS: HUMAN &RODENTP40RR017447 · NCRR · TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA · PI PROCKOP, DARWIN JOHNSON · 2003 to 2011
$8.9M
Multidisciplinary Training in Lung BiologyT32HL076122 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT &ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI IRVIN, CHARLES G, POYNTER, MATTHEW E · 2004 to 2023
$6.1M
Bioengineering New Lungs from Cadaveric Lung ScaffoldsRC4HL106625 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI WEISS, DANIEL J · 2010 to 2010
$4.3M
De-Cellularized Human Lungs for Ex Vivo Lung RegenerationR21HL108689 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI WEISS, DANIEL J · 2011 to 2012
$398k
NCRR NIH HHS P40 RR017447NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201000008CNHLBI NIH HHS R21 HL108689NHLBI NIH HHS RC4 HL106625NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL076122NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103449
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA novel potential approach for lung transplantation could be to utilize xenogeneic decellularized pig lung scaffolds that are recellularized with human lung cells. However, pig tissues express several immunogenic proteins, notably galactosylated cell surface glycoproteins resulting from alpha 1,3 galactosyltransferase (α-gal) activity, that could conceivably prevent effective use. Use of lungs from α-gal knock out (α-gal KO) pigs presents a potential alternative and thus comparative de- and recellularization of wild-type and α-gal KO pig lungs was assessed.

methodsDecellularized lungs were compared by histologic, immunohistochemical, and mass spectrometric techniques. Recellularization was assessed following compartmental inoculation of human lung bronchial epithelial cells, human lung fibroblasts, human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (all via airway inoculation), and human pulmonary vascular endothelial cells (CBF) (vascular inoculation).

resultsNo obvious differences in histologic structure was observed but an approximate 25% difference in retention of residual proteins was determined between decellularized wild-type and α-gal KO pig lungs, including retention of α-galactosylated epitopes in acellular wild-type pig lungs. However, robust initial recellularization and subsequent growth and proliferation was observed for all cell types with no obvious differences between cells seeded into wild-type versus α-gal KO lungs.

conclusionThese proof of concept studies demonstrate that decellularized wild-type and α-gal KO pig lungs can be comparably decellularized and comparably support initial growth of human lung cells, despite some differences in retained proteins. α-Gal KO pig lungs are a suitable platform for further studies of xenogeneic lung regeneration.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedCell ProliferationEpithelial CellsExtracellular MatrixFibroblastsGalactosyltransferasesHumansLungMesenchymal Stem CellsRegenerationSwineGalactosyltransferasesN-acetyllactosaminide alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase

Identifiers

PMID27310581
PMCPMC4991572

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.