Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31657140›Full record

ArticleJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2019

Comparison of gingiva-derived and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells for osteogenesis.

Quan Sun, Hidemi Nakata, Maiko Yamamoto, Shohei Kasugai, Shinji Kuroda

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Dental Pulp Stem Cell-Derived Secretome and Its Regenerative Potential.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Based Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Quan SunDepartment of Oral Implantology and Regenerative Dental Medicine, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Medical and Dental Sciences Track, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-1475-1692
Hidemi NakataDepartment of Oral Implantology and Regenerative Dental Medicine, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Medical and Dental Sciences Track, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Maiko YamamotoDepartment of Oral Implantology and Regenerative Dental Medicine, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Medical and Dental Sciences Track, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Shohei KasugaiDepartment of Oral Implantology and Regenerative Dental Medicine, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Medical and Dental Sciences Track, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Shinji KurodaDepartment of Oral Implantology and Regenerative Dental Medicine, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Medical and Dental Sciences Track, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-3100-8243
Tokyo Medical and Dental University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Presently, bone marrow is considered as a prime source of mesenchymal stem cells; however, there are some drawbacks and limitations. Compared with other mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) sources, gingiva-derived mesenchymal stem cells (GMSCs) are abundant and easy to obtain through minimally invasive cell isolation techniques. In this study, MSCs derived from gingiva and bone marrow were isolated and cultured from mice. GMSCs were characterized by osteogenic, adipogenic and chondrogenic differentiation, and flow cytometry. Compared with bone marrow MSCs (BMSCs), the proliferation capacity was judged by CCK-8 proliferation assay. Osteogenic differentiation was assessed by ALP staining, ALP assay and Alizarin red staining. RT-qPCR was performed for ALP, OCN, OSX and Runx2. The results indicated that GMSCs showed higher proliferative capacity than BMSCs. GMSCs turned more positive for ALP and formed a more number of mineralized nodules than BMSCs after osteogenic induction. RT-qPCR revealed that the expression of ALP, OCN, OSX and Runx2 was significantly increased in the GMSCs compared with that in BMSCs. Moreover, it was found that the number of CD90-positive cells in GMSCs elevated more than that of BMSCs during osteogenic induction. Taking these results together, it was indicated that GMSCs might be a promising source in the future bone tissue engineering.

Indexed as

OsteogenesisAlkaline PhosphataseAnimalsBone Marrow CellsCalcification, PhysiologicCell ProliferationFemaleGene Expression RegulationGingivaMesenchymal Stem CellsMice, Inbred ICRMicroRNAsThy-1 AntigensAlkaline PhosphataseMicroRNAsThy-1 Antigensbone marrowCD90gingivamesenchymal stem cellsosteogenesis

Identifiers

PMID31657140
PMCPMC6815943
OpenAlexW2973191634

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.