Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32755676›Full record

ReviewProgress in retinal and eye research2021

Corneal xenotransplantation: Where are we standing?

Chang Ho Yoon, Hyuk Jin Choi, Mee Kum Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Progress in retinal and eye research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing 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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Bioinspired Tissue Transparency: Achieving Sclera-to-Cornea Transplantation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The use of transgenic animals for xenotransplantation: An update.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

3 authors.

Chang Ho YoonDepartment of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Laboratory of Ocular Regenerative Medicine and Immunology, Seoul Artificial Eye Center, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyuk Jin ChoiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Laboratory of Ocular Regenerative Medicine and Immunology, Seoul Artificial Eye Center, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Mee Kum KimDepartment of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Laboratory of Ocular Regenerative Medicine and Immunology, Seoul Artificial Eye Center, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: kmk9@snu.ac.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The search for alternatives to allotransplants is driven by the shortage of corneal donors and is demanding because of the limitations of the alternatives. Indeed, current progress in genetically engineered (GE) pigs, the introduction of gene-editing technology by clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9, and advanced immunosuppressants have made xenotransplantation a possible option for a human trial. Porcine corneal xenotransplantation is considered applicable because the eye is regarded as an immune-privileged site. Furthermore, recent non-human primate studies have shown long-term survival of porcine xenotransplants in keratoplasty. Herein, corneal immune privilege is briefly introduced, and xenogeneic reactions are compared with allogeneic reactions in corneal transplantation. This review describes the current knowledge on special issues of xenotransplantation, xenogeneic rejection mechanisms, current immunosuppressive regimens of corneal xenotransplantation, preclinical efficacy and safety data of corneal xenotransplantation, and updates of the regulatory framework to conduct a clinical trial on corneal xenotransplantation. We also discuss barriers that might prevent xenotransplantation from becoming common practice, such as ethical dilemmas, public concerns on xenotransplantation, and the possible risk of xenozoonosis. Given that the legal definition of decellularized porcine cornea (DPC) lies somewhere between a medical device and a xenotransplant, the preclinical efficacy and clinical trial data using DPC are included. The review finally provides perspectives on the current standpoint of corneal xenotransplantation in the fields of regenerative medicine.

Indexed as

Corneal TransplantationTransplantation, HeterologousAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedCorneaGene EditingGene Regulatory NetworksGenetic EngineeringGraft SurvivalHumansImmunosuppression TherapyCorneal transplantationGalα1-3Galβ1-4GlcNAc-R (αGal)Porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV)Regulatory frameworkXenotransplantationXenozoonosis

Identifiers

PMID32755676
PMCPMC7396149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.