ArticleStem cell reviews and reports2021
The Essential Need for a Validated Potency Assay for Cell-Based Therapies in Cardiac Regenerative and Reparative Medicine. A Practical Approach to Test Development.
Article in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unraveling the aging-reversal potency of stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles in a rat model of premature cardiac senescence.iScience · 2025Article
- Transcriptome-aligned metabolic profiling by SERSome reflects biological changes following mesenchymal stem cells expansion.Stem cell research & therapy · 2024Article
- Article
- Cultivated autologous limbal epithelial cell (CALEC) transplantation: Development of manufacturing process and clinical evaluation of feasibility and safety.Science advances · 2023Article
- Effect of Shenfu Injection on Differentiation of Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells into Pacemaker-Like Cells and Improvement of Pacing Function of Sinoatrial Node.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biological treatments are one of the medical breakthroughs in the twenty-first century. The initial enthusiasm pushed the field towards indiscriminatory use of cell therapy regardless of the pathophysiological particularities of underlying conditions. In the reparative and regenerative cardiovascular field, the results of the over two decades of research in cell-based therapies, although promising still could not be translated into clinical scenario. Now, when we identified possible deficiencies and try to rebuild its foundations rigorously on scientific evidence, development of potency assays for the potential therapeutic product is one of the steps which will bring our goal of clinical translation closer. Although, highly challenging, the potency tests for cell products are considered as a priority by the regulatory agencies. In this paper we describe the main characteristics and challenges for a cell therapy potency test focusing on the cardiovascular field. Moreover, we discuss different steps and types of assays that should be taken into consideration for an eventual potency test development by tying together two fundamental concepts: target disease and expected mechanism of action. Development of potency assays for cell-based products consists in understanding the pathophysiology of the disease, identifying potential mechanisms of action (MoA) to counteract it and finding the most suitable cell-based product that exhibits these MoA. When applied, the potency assay needs to correlate bioactivity of the product, via a measurement related to the MoA, with treatment efficacy. However, in the cardiovascular field, the process faces several challenges and high requirements.
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.