ArticleCell transplantation2017
A Comparison of Exogenous Labels for the Histological Identification of Transplanted Neural Stem Cells.
Article in Cell transplantation, 2017. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- CXCL10 is a crucial chemoattractant for efficient intranasal delivery of mesenchymal stem cells to the neonatal hypoxic-ischemic brain.Stem cell research & therapy · 2024Article
- Targeting 17β-estradiol biosynthesis in neural stem cells improves stroke outcome.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2022Article
- Short lifespan of syngeneic transplanted MSC is a consequence of in vivo apoptosis and immune cell recruitment in mice.Cell death & disease · 2021Article
- Acupuncture accelerates neural regeneration and synaptophysin production after neural stem cells transplantation in mice.World journal of stem cells · 2020Article
- Recent Advances in Retinal Stem Cell Therapy.Current molecular biology reports · 2017Article
- Safety of Intraovarian Injection of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells in a Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Mouse Model.Cell transplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The interpretation of cell transplantation experiments is often dependent on the presence of an exogenous label for the identification of implanted cells. The exogenous labels Hoechst 33342, 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU), PKH26, and Qtracker were compared for their labeling efficiency, cellular effects, and reliability to identify a human neural stem cell (hNSC) line implanted intracerebrally into the rat brain. Hoechst 33342 (2 mg/ml) exhibited a delayed cytotoxicity that killed all cells within 7 days. This label was hence not progressed to in vivo studies. PKH26 (5 μM), Qtracker (15 nM), and BrdU (0.2 μM) labeled 100% of the cell population at day 1, although BrdU labeling declined by day 7. BrdU and Qtracker exerted effects on proliferation and differentiation. PKH26 reduced viability and proliferation at day 1, but this normalized by day 7. In an in vitro coculture assay, all labels transferred to unlabeled cells. After transplantation, the reliability of exogenous labels was assessed against the gold standard of a human-specific nuclear antigen (HNA) antibody. BrdU, PKH26, and Qtracker resulted in a very small proportion (<2%) of false positives, but a significant amount of false negatives (∼30%), with little change between 1 and 7 days. Exogenous labels can therefore be reliable to identify transplanted cells without exerting major cellular effects, but validation is required. The interpretation of cell transplantation experiments should be presented in the context of the label's limitations.
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.