Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33318405›Full record

ArticleNeural regeneration research2021

Neuroprotective effect of immunomodulatory peptides in rats with traumatic spinal cord injury.

Dulce Parra-Villamar, Liliana Blancas-Espinoza, Elisa Garcia-Vences, Juan Herrera-García, Adrian Flores-Romero, Alberto Toscano-Zapien, Jonathan Vilchis Villa, Rodríguez Barrera-Roxana, Soria Zavala Karla, Antonio Ibarra and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neural regeneration research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Dulce Parra-VillamarUnidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunología, Hospital de Pediatría, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI; Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; Ciudad de México, México.
Liliana Blancas-EspinozaUnidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunología, Hospital de Pediatría, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI; Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; Ciudad de México, México.
Elisa Garcia-VencesCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México, Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo de México; Centro de Investigación del Proyecto Camina A.C, Ciudad de México, México.
Juan Herrera-GarcíaUnidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunología, Hospital de Pediatría, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI; Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; Ciudad de México, México.
Adrian Flores-RomeroCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México, Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo de México; Centro de Investigación del Proyecto Camina A.C, Ciudad de México, México.
Alberto Toscano-ZapienUnidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunología, Hospital de Pediatría, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI; Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; Ciudad de México, México.
Jonathan Vilchis VillaUnidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunología, Hospital de Pediatría, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI; Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; Ciudad de México, México.
Rodríguez Barrera-RoxanaCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México, Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo de México; Centro de Investigación del Proyecto Camina A.C, Ciudad de México, México.
Soria Zavala KarlaUnidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunología, Hospital de Pediatría, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI; Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; Ciudad de México; Centro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México, Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo de México, México.
Antonio IbarraCentro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México, Campus Norte, Huixquilucan, Edo de México; Centro de Investigación del Proyecto Camina A.C, Ciudad de México, México.
Raúl Silva-GarcíaUnidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunología, Hospital de Pediatría, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI; Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; Ciudad de México, México.
Mexican Social Security Institute · MXCentro Medico Nacional Siglo XXI · MXUniversidad Anáhuac · MXUniversidad del Valle de México · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several therapies have shown obvious effects on structural conservation contributing to motor functional recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI). Nevertheless, neither strategy has achieved a convincing effect. We purposed a combined therapy of immunomodulatory peptides that individually have shown significant effects on motor functional recovery in rats with SCI. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of the combined therapy of monocyte locomotion inhibitor factor (MLIF), A91 peptide, and glutathione monoethyl ester (GSH-MEE) on chronic-stage spinal cord injury. Female Sprague-Dawley rats underwent a laminectomy of the T9 vertebra and a moderate contusion. Six groups were included: sham, PBS, MLIF + A91, MLIF + GSH-MEE, A91 + GSH-MEE, and MLIF + A91 + GSH-MEE. Two months after injury, motor functional recovery was evaluated using the open field test. Parenchyma and white matter preservation was evaluated using hematoxylin & eosin staining and Luxol Fast Blue staining, respectively. The number of motoneurons in the ventral horn and the number of axonal fibers were determined using hematoxylin & eosin staining and immunohistochemistry, respectively. Collagen deposition was evaluated using Masson's trichrome staining. The combined therapy of MLIF, A91, and GSH-MEE greatly contributed to motor functional recovery and preservation of the medullary parenchyma, white matter, motoneurons, and axonal fibres, and reduced the deposition of collagen in the lesioned area. The combined therapy of MLIF, A91, and GSH-MEE preserved spinal cord tissue integrity and promoted motor functional recovery of rats after SCI. This study was approved by the National Commission for Scientific Research on Bioethics and Biosafety of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social under registration number R-2015-785-116 (approval date November 30, 2015) and R-2017-3603-33 (approval date June 5, 2017).

Indexed as

glutathione monoethyl estermonocyte locomotion inhibitor factormotor functional recoveryneuroprotectionneurorestorationpeptidesprotective autoimmunityspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID33318405
PMCPMC8284257
OpenAlexW3111592807

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.