Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34717745›Full record

ReviewStem cell research & therapy2021

Ex vivo expansion and characterization of human corneal endothelium for transplantation: a review.

Ingrida Smeringaiova, Tor Paaske Utheim, Katerina Jirsova

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cell research & therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Regenerative therapy · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Controlled Release of Molecules to Enhance Cell Survival and Regeneration.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Focus on seed cells: stem cells in 3D bioprinting of corneal grafts.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ingrida SmeringaiovaLaboratory of the Biology and Pathology of the Eye, Institute of Biology and Medical Genetics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Albertov 4, 128 00, Prague, Czech Republic.
Tor Paaske UtheimDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Katerina JirsovaLaboratory of the Biology and Pathology of the Eye, Institute of Biology and Medical Genetics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Albertov 4, 128 00, Prague, Czech Republic. katerina.jirsova@lf1.cuni.cz.ORCID 0000-0002-4625-6701
Charles University · CZOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The corneal endothelium plays a key role in maintaining corneal transparency. Its dysfunction is currently treated with penetrating or lamellar keratoplasty. Advanced cell therapy methods seek to address the persistent global deficiency of donor corneas by enabling the renewal of the endothelial monolayer with tissue-engineered grafts. This review provides an overview of recently published literature on the preparation of endothelial grafts for transplantation derived from cadaveric corneas that have developed over the last decade (2010-2021). Factors such as the most suitable donor parameters, culture substrates and media, endothelial graft storage conditions, and transplantation methods are discussed. Despite efforts to utilize alternative cellular sources, such as induced pluripotent cells, cadaveric corneas appear to be the best source of cells for graft preparation to date. However, native endothelial cells have a limited natural proliferative capacity, and they often undergo rapid phenotype changes in ex vivo culture. This is the main reason why no culture protocol for a clinical-grade endothelial graft prepared from cadaveric corneas has been standardized so far. Currently, the most established ex vivo culture protocol involves the peel-and-digest method of cell isolation and cell culture by the dual media method, including the repeated alternation of high and low mitogenic conditions. Culture media are enriched by additional substances, such as signaling pathway (Rho-associated protein kinase, TGF-β, etc.) inhibitors, to stimulate proliferation and inhibit unwanted morphological changes, particularly the endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition. To date, this promising approach has led to the development of endothelial grafts for the first in-human clinical trial in Japan. In addition to the lack of a standard culture protocol, endothelial-specific markers are still missing to confirm the endothelial phenotype in a graft ready for clinical use. Because the corneal endothelium appears to comprise phenotypically heterogeneous populations of cells, the genomic and proteomic expression of recently proposed endothelial-specific markers, such as Cadherin-2, CD166, or SLC4A11, must be confirmed by additional studies. The preparation of endothelial grafts is still challenging today, but advances in tissue engineering and surgery over the past decade hold promise for the successful treatment of endothelial dysfunctions in more patients worldwide.

Indexed as

Corneal TransplantationEndothelium, CornealAnion Transport ProteinsAntiportersCorneaEndothelial CellsHumansProteomicsAnion Transport ProteinsAntiportersSLC4A11 protein, humanCell cultureCorneal endotheliumEndothelial phenotypic markersStorageTissue engineeringTransplantation

Identifiers

PMID34717745
PMCPMC8556978
OpenAlexW3210920306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.