ArticleMicromachines2020
mRNA as a Tool for Gene Transfection in 3D Cell Culture for Future Regenerative Therapy.
Article in Micromachines, 2020. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic Manipulation of Mammalian Cells in Microphysiological Hydrogels.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- β-catenin mRNA encapsulated in SM-102 lipid nanoparticles enhances bone formation in a murine tibia fracture repair model.Bioactive materials · 2024Article
- Review
- Emerging strategies in reprogramming and enhancing the fate of mesenchymal stem cells for bone and cartilage tissue engineering.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A combination of three-dimensional (3D) cell culturing and non-viral gene transfection is promising in improving outcomes of cell transplantation therapy. Herein, gene transfection profiles in 3D cell culture were compared between plasmid DNA (pDNA) and messenger RNA (mRNA) introduction, using mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) 3D spheroids. Green fluorescence protein (GFP) mRNA induced GFP protein expression in 77% of the cells in the spheroids, whereas only 34% of the cells became GFP positive following pDNA introduction. In mechanistic analyses, most of the cells in MSC spheroids were non-dividing, and pDNA failed to induce GFP expression in most of the non-dividing cells. In contrast, both dividing and non-dividing cells became GFP-positive after mRNA introduction, which led to a high overall percentage of GFP-positive cells in the spheroids. Consequently, mRNA encoding an osteogenic factor, runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), allowed in vitro osteogenic differentiation of MSCs in spheroids more efficiently compared to Runx2 pDNA. Conclusively, mRNA exhibits high potential in gene transfection in 3D cell culture, in which the cell division rate is lower than that in monolayer culture, and the combination of mRNA introduction and 3D cell culture is a promising approach to improve outcomes of cell transplantation in future regenerative therapy.
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.