ArticleTissue engineering and regenerative medicine2018
Feeder Cells Free Rabbit Oral Mucosa Epithelial Cell Sheet Engineering.
Article in Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generation of a novel model of bioengineered human oral mucosa with increased vascularization potential.Journal of periodontal research · 2021Article
- Clinical Trials of Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency Treated with Oral Mucosal Epithelial Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Tissue Regeneration of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells on Porous Gelatin Micro-Carriers by Long-Term DynamicTissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2019Article
- The Role of E-Cadherin in Maintaining the Barrier Function of Corneal Epithelium after Treatment with Cultured Autologous Oral Mucosa Epithelial Cell Sheet Grafts for Limbal Stem Deficiency.Journal of ophthalmology · 2016Article
- Recent update on craniofacial tissue engineering.Journal of tissue engineeringReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal cell culture method of autologous oral mucosal epithelial cell sheet is not well established for a safe transplantation on to the patients' ocular surface. Animal serum and 3T3 mouse feeder cells are currently being used to stimulate the growth of the epithelial cells. However, the use of animal compounds can have potential side effects for the patient after transplantation of the engineered cell sheet. In the present study, we focused on engineering a rabbit oral mucosal epithelial cell sheet without 3T3 mouse feeder cells using a mix of Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium/Bronchial Epithelial Cell Growth Medium culture media (DMEM/BEGM). Autologous oral mucosal epithelial cell sheets, engineered with DMEM/BEGM feeder cell free culture media, were compared to those cultured in presence of serum and feeder cells. Using a DMEM/BEGM mix culture media, feeder cell free culture condition, autologous oral mucosal epithelial cells reached confluence and formed a multilayered sheet. The phenotype of engineered cell sheets cultured with DMEM/BEGM were characterized and compared to those cultured with serum and feeder. Hematoxylin and eosin staining showed the formation of a similar stratified multilayer cell sheets, in both culture conditions. The expression of deltaN-p63, ABCG2, PCNA, E-cadherin, Beta-catenin, CK3, CK4, CK13, Muc5AC, was similar in both culture conditions. We demonstrated that rabbit autologous oral mucosal epithelial cell sheet can be engineered, in feeder cell free conditions. The use of the DMEM/BEGM culture media to engineer culture autologous oral mucosa epithelial cell sheet will help to identify key factors involved in the growth and differentiation of oral mucosal epithelial cells.
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.