ArticleGenes2021
Molecular Profiling and Gene Banking of Rabbit EPCs Derived from Two Biological Sources.
Article in Genes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Isolation and Characterization of Rabbit Spermatogonial Stem Cells as a Promising Animal Genetic Resource for Biodiversity Protection.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Generation of Novel Monoclonal Antibodies Recognizing Rabbit CD34 Antigen.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- Therapeutic Potential of Mesenchymal Stem Cell and Tenocyte Secretomes for Tendon Repair: Proteomic Profiling and Functional Characterization In Vitro and In Ovo.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Changes in the Intracellular Composition of Macro and Microminerals After Cryopreservation of the Rabbit Stem/Progenitor Cells.Journal of developmental biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Secretome Analysis of Rabbit and Human Mesenchymal Stem and Endothelial Progenitor Cells: A Comparative Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) have been broadly studied for several years due to their outstanding regenerative potential. Moreover, these cells might be a valuable source of genetic information for the preservation of endangered animal species. However, a controversy regarding their characterization still exists. The aim of this study was to isolate and compare the rabbit peripheral blood- and bone marrow-derived EPCs with human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) in terms of their phenotype and morphology that could be affected by the passage number or cryopreservation as well as to assess their possible neuro-differentiation potential. Briefly, cells were isolated and cultured under standard endothelial conditions until passage 3. The morphological changes during the culture were monitored and each passage was analyzed for the typical phenotype using flow cytometry, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and novel digital droplet PCR (ddPCR), and compared to HUVECs. The neurogenic differentiation was induced using a commercial kit. Rabbit cells were also cryopreserved for at least 3 months and then analyzed after thawing. According to the obtained results, both rabbit EPCs exhibit a spindle-shaped morphology and high proliferation rate. The both cell lines possess same stable phenotype: CD14
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.