ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021
Comparative study on the biological characteristics of menstrual blood- and endometrium-derived endometrial cells.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalized Models of Biological Barriers and Their Diseases: Recent Progress with Organs-On-Chips.Advanced biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During a woman's reproductive period, the endometrial tissue is shed and regenerated every month to prepare for pregnancy or for the next cycle. The aim of the present study was to isolate, culture and characterize human endometrial cells (ECs) derived from menstrual blood (MB) and the endometrium (E). MB-derived ECs (MB-ECs) were isolated from women's MB. E-derived ECs (E-ECs) were isolated from women's endometrial tissues. The present study investigated the epithelial cell marker cytokeratin 18 (CK18) in MB-ECs and E-ECs. Cell proliferation analyses indicated that E-ECs (population doubling time, 20.85 h) grew faster than MB-ECs (population doubling time, 22.05 h; P<0.05). Cell migration ability was found to be significantly greater for MB-ECs than for E-ECs at 48 h (P<0.01). MB-ECs incubated with TGF-β1 (3 ng/ml) exhibited significantly decreased CK18 mRNA expression (P<0.01), and significantly increased vimentin (Vim) mRNA (P<0.05) and protein (P<0.01) expression at 6 and 12 h, respectively. E-EC incubation with TGF-β1 (3 ng/ml) significantly decreased CK18 mRNA expression (P<0.01) at 12 h and significantly increased Vim mRNA (P<0.01) and protein expression (P<0.05) at 6 h. The present results indicated that MB-ECs and E-ECs were biologically different, and that epithelial-mesenchymal transdifferentiation could be induced by TGF-β1 treatment.
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.