Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29467014›Full record

ArticleStem cell research & therapy2018

A biomaterials approach to influence stem cell fate in injectable cell-based therapies.

Mahetab H Amer, Felicity R A J Rose, Kevin M Shakesheff, Lisa J White

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cell research & therapy, 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
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. [Research advances on stem cell therapy for diabetic foot wounds].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Injectable Biomaterials for Dental Tissue Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Naturally-Derived Biomaterials for Tissue Engineering Applications.Advances in experimental medicine and biology
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mahetab H AmerCentre for Biomolecular Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Felicity R A J RoseCentre for Biomolecular Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kevin M ShakesheffCentre for Biomolecular Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Lisa J WhiteCentre for Biomolecular Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. lisa.white@nottingham.ac.uk.
University of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research Council MR/K026682/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous stem cell therapies use injection-based administration to deliver high-density cell preparations. However, cell retention rates as low as 1% have been observed within days of transplantation. This study investigated the effects of varying administration and formulation parameters of injection-based administration on cell dose recovery and differentiation fate choice of human mesenchymal stem cells.

methodsThe impact of ejection rate via clinically relevant Hamilton micro-syringes and biomaterial-assisted delivery was investigated. Cell viability, the percentage of cell dose delivered as viable cells, proliferation capacity as well as differentiation behaviour in bipotential media were assessed. Characterisation of the biomaterial-based cell carriers was also carried out.

resultsA significant improvement of in-vitro dose recovery in cells co-ejected with natural biomaterials was observed, with ejections within 2% (w/v) gelatin resulting in 87.5 ± 14% of the cell dose being delivered as viable cells, compared to 32.2 ± 19% of the dose ejected in the commonly used saline vehicle at 10 μl/min. Improvement in cell recovery was not associated with the rheological properties of biomaterials utilised, as suggested by previous studies. The extent of osteogenic differentiation was shown to be substantially altered by choice of ejection rate and cell carrier, despite limited contact time with cells during ejection. Collagen type I and bone-derived extracellular matrix cell carriers yielded significant increases in mineralised matrix deposited at day 21 relative to PBS.

conclusionsAn enhanced understanding of how administration protocols and biomaterials influence cell recovery, differentiation capacity and choice of fate will facilitate the development of improved administration and formulation approaches to achieve higher efficacy in stem cell transplantation.

Indexed as

AdipogenesisCell DifferentiationMesenchymal Stem CellsOsteogenesisBiocompatible MaterialsCell SurvivalHumansMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationBiocompatible MaterialsBiomaterialsCell fateCell therapyDifferentiationInjectableMesenchymal stem cells

Identifiers

PMID29467014
PMCPMC5822649
OpenAlexW2794019594

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.