Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31318872›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Bone regeneration in Ds-Red pig calvarial defect using allogenic transplantation of EGFP-pMSCs - A comparison of host cells and seeding cells in the scaffold.

Ming-Kai Hsieh, Chia-Jung Wu, Xuan-Chun Su, Yi-Chen Chen, Tsung-Ting Tsai, Chi-Chien Niu, Po-Liang Lai, Shinn-Chih Wu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Ming-Kai HsiehInstitute of Biotechnology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-9154-8850
Chia-Jung WuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Xuan-Chun SuDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yi-Chen ChenInstitute of Biotechnology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-8969-9927
Tsung-Ting TsaiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Chi-Chien NiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Po-Liang LaiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Shinn-Chih WuInstitute of Biotechnology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCells, scaffolds, and factors are the triad of regenerative engineering; however, it is difficult to distinguish whether cells in the regenerative construct are from the seeded cells or host cells via the host blood supply. We performed a novel in vivo study to transplant enhanced green fluorescent pig mesenchymal stem cells (EGFP-pMSCs) into calvarial defect of DsRed pigs. The cell distribution and proportion were distinguished by the different fluorescent colors through the whole regenerative period. METHOD/

resultsEight adult domestic Ds-Red pigs were treated with five modalities: empty defects without scaffold (group 1); defects filled only with scaffold (group 2); defects filled with osteoinduction medium-loaded scaffold (group 3); defects filled with 5 x 103 cells/scaffold (group 4); and defects filled with 5 x 104 cells/scaffold (group 5). The in vitro cell distribution, morphology, osteogenic differentiation, and fluorescence images of groups 4 and 5 were analyzed. Two animals were sacrificed at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after transplantation. The in vivo fluorescence imaging and quantification data showed that EGFP-pMSCs were represented in the scaffolds in groups 4 and 5 throughout the whole regenerative period. A higher seeded cell density resulted in more sustained seeded cells in bone regeneration compared to a lower seeded cell density. Host cells were recruited by seeded cells if enough space was available in the scaffold. Host cells in groups 1 to 3 did not change from the 1st week to 4th week, which indicates that the scaffold without seeded cells cannot recruit host cells even when enough space is available for cell ingrowth. The histological and immunohistochemical data showed that more cells were involved in osteogenesis in scaffolds with seeded cells.

conclusionOur in vivo results showed that more seeded cells recruit more host cells and that both cell types participate in osteogenesis. These results suggest that scaffolds without seeded cells may not be effective in bone transplantation.

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationAnimalsCells, CulturedGreen Fluorescent ProteinsMesenchymal Stem CellsOsteogenesisSkullSwineTissue ScaffoldsTransplantation, Homologousenhanced green fluorescent proteinGreen Fluorescent Proteins

Identifiers

PMID31318872
PMCPMC6638893

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.