Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33351110›Full record

ArticleBlood advances2020

Intrabone transplantation of CD34+ cells with optimized delivery does not enhance engraftment in a rhesus macaque model.

Kate Stringaris, Robert F Hoyt, Jan K Davidson-Moncada, Jeremy M Pantin, John F Tisdale, Naoya Uchida, Lydia N Raines, Robert Reger, Noriko Sato, Cynthia E Dunbar and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Blood advances, 2020. 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
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. First-in-human dosimetry and biodistribution of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  2. In vivo tracking of ex-vivo-generatedMolecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025
    Article
  3. Laser Sources for Traditional and Spectral Flow Cytometry.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Review
  4. Direct Cell Radiolabeling forChemical reviews · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Nonhuman Primates in Translational Research.Annual review of animal biosciences · 2022
    Review
  7. Understanding and overcoming adverse consequences of genome editing on hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2021
    Review
  8. Imaging of cell-based therapy usingNanotheranostics · 2021
    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

20 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kate StringarisLaboratory of Transplantation Immunotherapy, Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Robert F HoytDivision of Veterinary Medicine, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Jan K Davidson-MoncadaLaboratory of Transplantation Immunotherapy, Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Jeremy M PantinLaboratory of Transplantation Immunotherapy, Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
John F TisdaleThe Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics Laboratory, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Naoya UchidaThe Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics Laboratory, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Lydia N RainesThe Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics Laboratory, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Robert RegerLaboratory of Transplantation Immunotherapy, Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Noriko SatoMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute.
Cynthia E DunbarTranslational Stem Cell Biology Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and.
Timothy J HuntDivision of Veterinary Medicine, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Randall R ClevengerDivision of Veterinary Medicine, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Allen KrouseDivision of Veterinary Medicine, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Mark E MetzgerDivision of Veterinary Medicine, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Aylin C BonifacinoDivision of Veterinary Medicine, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
William TelfordCenter for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Peter L ChoykeMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute.
Theresa EngelsDivision of Veterinary Medicine, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Robert E DonahueDivision of Veterinary Medicine, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Richard W ChildsLaboratory of Transplantation Immunotherapy, Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intrabone (IB) injection of umbilical cord blood has been proposed as a potential mechanism to improve transplant engraftment and prevent graft failure. However, conventional IB techniques produce low retention of transplanted cells in the marrow. To overcome this barrier, we developed an optimized IB (OIB) injection method using low-volume, computer-controlled slow infusion that promotes cellular retention in the marrow. Here, we compare engraftment of CD34+ cells transplanted in a myeloablative rhesus macaque (RM) model using the OIB method compared with IV delivery. RM CD34+ cells obtained by apheresis were split equally for transduction with lentiviral vectors encoding either green fluorescent protein or yellow fluorescent protein reporters. Following conditioning, one marked autologous population of CD34+ cells was injected directly IB using the OIB method and the other was injected via slow IV push into the same animal (n = 3). Daily flow cytometry of blood quantified the proportion of engrafting cells deriving from each source. Marrow retention was examined using positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging of 89Zirconium (89Zr)-oxine-labeled CD34+ cells. CD34+ cells injected via the OIB method were retained in the marrow and engrafted in all 3 animals. However, OIB-transplanted progenitor cells did not engraft any faster than those delivered IV and contributed significantly less to hematopoiesis than IV-delivered cells at all time points. Rigorous testing of our OIB delivery system in a competitive RM myeloablative transplant model showed no engraftment advantage over conventional IV infusion. Given the increased complexity and potential risks of IB vs IV approaches, our data do not support IB transplantation as a strategy to improve hematopoietic engraftment.

Indexed as

Hematopoietic Stem CellsHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationAnimalsAntigens, CD34Macaca mulattaRadioisotopesZirconiumAntigens, CD34RadioisotopesZirconiumZirconium-89

Identifiers

PMID33351110
PMCPMC7757001
OpenAlexW3110991553

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.