ReviewCurrent opinion in organ transplantation2019
The potential role of 3D-bioprinting in xenotransplantation.
Review in Current opinion in organ transplantation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reshaping transplantation with AI, emerging technologies and xenotransplantation.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Advances in 3D bioprinting for regenerative medicine applications.Regenerative biomaterials · 2024Review
- 3D Printing: Advancement in Biogenerative Engineering to Combat Shortage of Organs and Bioapplicable Materials.Regenerative engineering and translational medicine · 2022Review
- Current Barriers to Clinical Liver Xenotransplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo review the impact of a new technology, 3D-bioprinting, in xenotransplantation research. RECENT
findingsGenetically engineered pigs, beginning with human (h) CD55-transgenic and Gal-knockout pigs, have improved the outcomes of xenotransplantation research. Today, there are more than 30 different genetically engineered pigs either expressing human gene(s) or lacking pig gene(s). CRIPSR/cas9 technology has facilitated the production of multigene pigs (up to nine genes in a single pig), which lack multiple pig xenoantigens, and express human transgenes, such as hCD46, hCD55, hThrombomodulin, hCD39, etc. Although recent studies in nonhuman primates (NHPs) have demonstrated prolonged survival after life-supporting pig kidney, heart, and islet xenotransplantation, researchers have difficulty determining the best genetic combination to test in NHPs because of a potential greater than 100 000 genetic combinations. 3D-bioprinting of genetically engineered pig cells: is superior to 2D in-vitro testing, enables organ-specific testing, helps to understand differences in immunogenicity between organs, and is faster and cheaper than testing in NHPs. Moreover, 3D-bioprinted cells can be continuously perfused in a bioreactor, controlling for all variables, except the studied variable. SUMMARY: 3D-bioprinting can help in the study of the impact of specific genes (human or pig) in xenotransplantation in a rapid, inexpensive, and reliable way.
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.