ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
Human Umbilical Cord Lining-Derived Epithelial Cells: A Potential Source of Non-Native Epithelial Cells That Accelerate Healing in a Porcine Cutaneous Wound Model.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The revolutionary role of placental derivatives in biomedical research.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Advances of exosomes in diabetic wound healing.Burns & trauma · 2025Review
- Cellular and Molecular Processes in Wound Healing.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Recent Approaches for Wound Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Human umbilical cord lining epithelial cells [CLECs) are naïve in nature and can be ethically recovered from cords that are routinely discarded. The success of using oral mucosal epithelial cells for cornea defects hints at the feasibility of treating cutaneous wounds using non-native CLECs. Herein, we characterized CLECs using flow cytometry (FC) and skin organotypic cultures in direct comparison with skin keratinocytes (KCs). This was followed by wound healing study to compare the effects of CLEC application and the traditional use of human skin allografts (HSGs) in a porcine wound model. While CLECs were found to express all the epidermal cell markers probed, the major difference between CLECs and KCs lies in the level of expression (in FC analysis) as well as in the location of expression (of the epithelium in organotypic cultures) of some of the basal cell markers probed. On the pig wounds, CLEC application promoted accelerated healing with no adverse reaction compared to HSG use. Though CLECs, like HSGs, elicited high levels of local and systemic immune responses in the animals during the first week, these effects were tapered off more quickly in the CLEC-treated group. Overall, the in vivo porcine data point to the potential of CLECs as a non-native and safe source of cells to treat cutaneous wounds.
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.