Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32394949›Full record

ReviewNeural regeneration research2020

Reliable cell purification and determination of cell purity: crucial aspects of olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation for spinal cord repair.

Ronak Reshamwala, Megha Shah, Lucy Belt, Jenny A K Ekberg, James A St John

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neural regeneration research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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.

Ronak ReshamwalaGriffith Institute for Drug Discovery, Griffith University, Brisbane; Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Southport; Clem Jones Centre for Neurobiology and Stem Cell Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Megha ShahMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Southport; Clem Jones Centre for Neurobiology and Stem Cell Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Lucy BeltMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Southport; Clem Jones Centre for Neurobiology and Stem Cell Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Jenny A K EkbergGriffith Institute for Drug Discovery, Griffith University, Brisbane; Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Southport; Clem Jones Centre for Neurobiology and Stem Cell Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
James A St JohnGriffith Institute for Drug Discovery, Griffith University, Brisbane; Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Southport; Clem Jones Centre for Neurobiology and Stem Cell Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Griffith University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells, the glia of the primary olfactory nervous system, has been trialed for spinal cord injury repair with promising but variable outcomes in animals and humans. Olfactory ensheathing cells can be harvested either from the lamina propria beneath the neuroepithelium in the nasal cavity, or from the olfactory bulb in the brain. As these areas contain several other cell types, isolating and purifying olfactory ensheathing cells is a critical part of the process. It is largely unknown how contaminating cells such as fibroblasts, other glial cell types and supporting cells affect olfactory ensheathing cell function post-transplantation; these cells may also cause unwanted side-effects. It is also, however, possible that the presence of some of the contaminant cells can improve outcomes. Here, we reviewed the last decade of olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation studies in rodents, with a focus on olfactory ensheathing cell purity. We analyzed how purification methods and resultant cell purity differed between olfactory mucosa- and olfactory bulb-derived cell preparations. We analyzed how the studies reported on olfactory ensheathing cell purity and which criteria were used to define cells as olfactory ensheathing cells. Finally, we analyzed the correlation between cell purity and transplantation outcomes. We found that olfactory bulb-derived olfactory ensheathing cell preparations are typically purer than mucosa-derived preparations. We concluded that there is an association between high olfactory ensheathing cell purity and favourable outcomes, but the lack of olfactory ensheathing cell-specific markers severely hampers the field.

Indexed as

antibodyastrocytefibroblastgliaglial cellinjurynerveneuron traumasurgery

Identifiers

PMID32394949
PMCPMC7716040
OpenAlexW3023571958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.