Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28698981›Full record

ReviewMolecular biotechnology2017

Genetically Modified Pigs as Organ Donors for Xenotransplantation.

Magdalena Hryhorowicz, Joanna Zeyland, Ryszard Słomski, Daniel Lipiński

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular biotechnology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing 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

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Future of xenotransplantation in Korea.Clinical transplantation and research · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Liver Xenotransplantation: A Path to Clinical Reality.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024
    Review
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

Magdalena HryhorowiczDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632, Poznan, Poland. magdalena.hryhorowicz@gmail.com.
Joanna ZeylandDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632, Poznan, Poland.
Ryszard SłomskiDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632, Poznan, Poland.
Daniel LipińskiDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632, Poznan, Poland.

Funding

Narodowe Centrum Badań i Rozwoju INNOMED/I/17/NCBR/ 2014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing shortage of available organs is a major problem in transplantology. Thus, new and alternative sources of organs need to be found. One promising solution could be xenotransplantation, i.e., the use of animal cells, tissues and organs. The domestic pig is the optimum donor for such transplants. However, xenogeneic transplantation from pigs to humans involves high immune incompatibility and a complex rejection process. The rapid development of genetic engineering techniques enables genome modifications in pigs that reduce the cross-species immune barrier.

Indexed as

Tissue DonorsAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedHumansSwineTransplantation, HeterologousGenetically modified pigsGenetic engineeringGenome modificationsTransgenic pigsXenotransplantation

Identifiers

PMID28698981
PMCPMC5617878

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.