Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33251197›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2020

GDNF Gene Therapy to Repair the Injured Peripheral Nerve.

Ruben Eggers, Fred de Winter, Martijn R Tannemaat, Martijn J A Malessy, Joost Verhaagen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Peripheral nerve repair: innovations and future directions.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ruben EggersLaboratory for Neuroregeneration, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Institute of the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Fred de WinterLaboratory for Neuroregeneration, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Institute of the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Martijn R TannemaatLaboratory for Neuroregeneration, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Institute of the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Martijn J A MalessyLaboratory for Neuroregeneration, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Institute of the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Joost VerhaagenLaboratory for Neuroregeneration, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Institute of the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLRoyal Academy of Art · NLRoyal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A spinal root avulsion is the most severe proximal peripheral nerve lesion possible. Avulsion of ventral root filaments disconnects spinal motoneurons from their target muscles, resulting in complete paralysis. In patients that undergo brachial plexus nerve repair, axonal regeneration is a slow process. It takes months or even years to bridge the distance from the lesion site to the distal targets located in the forearm. Following ventral root avulsion, without additional pharmacological or surgical treatments, progressive death of motoneurons occurs within 2 weeks (Koliatsos et al., 1994). Reimplantation of the avulsed ventral root or peripheral nerve graft can act as a conduit for regenerating axons and increases motoneuron survival (Chai et al., 2000). However, this beneficial effect is transient. Combined with protracted and poor long-distance axonal regeneration, this results in permanent function loss. To overcome motoneuron death and improve functional recovery, several promising intervention strategies are being developed. Here, we focus on GDNF gene-therapy. We first introduce the experimental ventral root avulsion model and discuss its value as a proxy to study clinical neurotmetic nerve lesions. Second, we discuss our recent studies showing that GDNF gene-therapy is a powerful strategy to promote long-term motoneuron survival and improve function when target muscle reinnervation occurs within a critical post-lesion period. Based upon these observations, we discuss the influence of timing of the intervention, and of the duration, concentration and location of GDNF delivery on functional outcome. Finally, we provide a perspective on future research directions to realize functional recovery using gene therapy.

Indexed as

axonal regenerationgene therapynerve regenerationperipheral nerve injuryventral root avulsion

Identifiers

PMID33251197
PMCPMC7673415
OpenAlexW3095801175

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.