ArticleScientific reports2022
Limbal epithelial stem cell sheets from young donors have better regenerative potential.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
- Article
- Age-related lncRNA alterations of SDHAP2_miR-17-5p/miR-20b-5p_RAB11FIP1 ceRNA network in donor-derived human limbal epithelial cells.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Characterization of LGR5 as a Definitive and Functional Marker for Human Limbal Epithelial Stem Cells.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Optimization and Application of Seahorse Glycolytic Stress Test in Mouse Corneal Tissues: Revealing Metabolic Profiles in Injury Models.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Electrospun poly(l-lactide-Heliyon · 2024Article
- Cell-based Therapies for Corneal and Retinal Disorders.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2023Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the stemness of limbal epithelial stem cell sheets in relation to the donor's age. Human limbal explants from cadaveric donors were set on human amniotic membrane scaffolds with the xeno-free medium. We evaluated limbal epithelial sheet size, expression of stem/progenitor cell markers, and colony formation efficiency from donors of different age groups (age ≤ 45, age 45-65, and age > 65). Expression of the proliferation marker Ki67, stem/progenitor cell markers p63α and ABCG2, cornea specific marker PANCK, and differentiation marker CK12 were evaluated. To determine the effect of donor age on the storage period of limbal explant sheets, the limbal explant outgrowth sheets were stored in 4 °C for 2 days and analyzed for JC-1, p63α, and PANCK with FACS on each day. From days 6 to 12, the outgrowth area of the limbal epithelial stem cell sheet was significantly larger in the age ≤ 45 groups (296 ± 54.7 mm
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.