Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29402914›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Neuroprotection of the hypoxic-ischemic mouse brain by human CD117

Michelangelo Corcelli, Kate Hawkins, Filipa Vlahova, Avina Hunjan, Kate Dowding, Paolo De Coppi, Anna L David, Donald Peebles, Pierre Gressens, Henrik Hagberg and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Michelangelo CorcelliUniversity College London, Institute for Women's Health, Maternal and Fetal Medicine Department, London, UK.
Kate HawkinsUniversity College London, Institute for Women's Health, Maternal and Fetal Medicine Department, London, UK.
Filipa VlahovaUniversity College London, Institute for Women's Health, Maternal and Fetal Medicine Department, London, UK.
Avina HunjanUniversity College London, Institute for Women's Health, Maternal and Fetal Medicine Department, London, UK.
Kate DowdingUniversity College London, Institute for Women's Health, Maternal and Fetal Medicine Department, London, UK.
Paolo De CoppiUniversity College London, Great Ormond Street Institute for Child Health, London, UK.
Anna L DavidUniversity College London, Institute for Women's Health, Maternal and Fetal Medicine Department, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0199-6140
Donald PeeblesUniversity College London, Institute for Women's Health, Maternal and Fetal Medicine Department, London, UK.
Pierre GressensKing's College London, Department of Perinatal Imaging and Health, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Henrik HagbergKing's College London, Department of Perinatal Imaging and Health, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Mariya HristovaUniversity College London, Institute for Women's Health, Maternal and Fetal Medicine Department, London, UK. m.hristova@ucl.ac.uk.
Pascale V GuillotUniversity College London, Institute for Women's Health, Maternal and Fetal Medicine Department, London, UK. p.guillot@ucl.ac.uk.
London Women's Clinic · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP_2014-04-046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human amniotic fluid contains two morphologically-distinct sub-populations of stem cells with regenerative potential, spindle-shaped (SS-hAFSCs) and round-shaped human amniotic fluid stem cells (RS-hAFSCs). However, it is unclear whether morphological differences correlate with functionality, and this lack of knowledge limits their translational applications. Here, we show that SS-hAFSCs and RS-hAFSCs differ in their neuro-protective ability, demonstrating that a single contralateral injection of SS-hAFSCs into hypoxic-ischemic P7 mice conferred a 47% reduction in hippocampal tissue loss and 43-45% reduction in TUNEL-positive cells in the hippocampus and striatum 48 hours after the insult, decreased microglial activation and TGFβ1 levels, and prevented demyelination. On the other hand, RS-hAFSCs failed to show such neuro-protective effects. It is possible that SS-hAFSCs exert their neuroprotection via endoglin-dependent inhibition of TGFβ1 signaling in target cells. These findings identify a sub-population of CD117

Indexed as

Stem Cell TransplantationAmniotic FluidAnimalsAntigens, CDApoptosisBrain IschemiaCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyCell LineageCorpus StriatumDemyelinating DiseasesDisease Models, AnimalEndoglinGene ExpressionHippocampusHumansHypoxiaAntigens, CDEndoglinEng protein, mouseTgfb1 protein, mouseTransforming Growth Factor beta1

Identifiers

PMID29402914
PMCPMC5799160
OpenAlexW2788117840

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.