Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36991509›Full record

ArticleBiological research2023

Spleen regeneration after subcutaneous heterotopic autotransplantation in a mouse model.

Andrey Elchaninov, Polina Vishnyakova, Anastasiya Lokhonina, Viktoria Kiseleva, Egor Menyailo, Maria Antonova, Aiaz Mamedov, Irina Arutyunyan, Galina Bolshakova, Dmitry Goldshtein and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrey ElchaninovLaboratory of Growth and Development, Avtsyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of FSBI Petrovsky National Research Centre of Surgery, Moscow, Russia. elchandrey@yandex.ru.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2392-4439
Polina VishnyakovaLaboratory of Regenerative Medicine, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Anastasiya LokhoninaLaboratory of Regenerative Medicine, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Viktoria KiselevaLaboratory of Regenerative Medicine, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Egor MenyailoLaboratory of Growth and Development, Avtsyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of FSBI Petrovsky National Research Centre of Surgery, Moscow, Russia.
Maria AntonovaHistology Department, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Aiaz MamedovHistology Department, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Irina ArutyunyanLaboratory of Regenerative Medicine, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Galina BolshakovaLaboratory of Growth and Development, Avtsyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of FSBI Petrovsky National Research Centre of Surgery, Moscow, Russia.
Dmitry GoldshteinLaboratory of Stem Cells Genetics, Research Center of Medical Genetics, Moscow, Russia.
Xuhui BaoInstitute of Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, China.
Timur FatkhudinovLaboratory of Growth and Development, Avtsyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of FSBI Petrovsky National Research Centre of Surgery, Moscow, Russia.
Gennady SukhikhLaboratory of Regenerative Medicine, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Named after Academician V.I. Kulakov of Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia · RUNational Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V.I.Kulakov of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation · RUPirogov Russian National Research Medical University · RUResearch Institute of Human Morphology · RUFudan University · CNResearch Centre for Medical Genetics · RU

Funding

RSF 22-14-00152State Assignment 121040600409-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSplenectomy may lead to severe postoperative complications, including sepsis and cancers. A possible solution to this problem is heterotopic autotransplantation of the spleen. Splenic autografts rapidly restore the regular splenic microanatomy in model animals. However, the functional competence of such regenerated autografts in terms of lympho- and hematopoietic capacity remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to monitor the dynamics of B and T lymphocyte populations, the monocyte-macrophage system, and megakaryocytopoiesis in murine splenic autografts.

methodsThe model of subcutaneous splenic engraftment was implemented in C57Bl male mice. Cell sources of functional recovery were studied using heterotopic transplantations from B10-GFP donors to C57Bl recipients. The cellular composition dynamics were studied by immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry. Expression of regulatory genes at mRNA and protein levels was assessed by real-time PCR and Western blot, respectively.

resultsCharacteristic splenic architecture is restored within 30 days post-transplantation, consistent with other studies. The monocyte-macrophage system, megakaryocytes, and B lymphocytes show the highest rates, whereas the functional recovery of T cells takes longer. Cross-strain splenic engraftments using B10-GFP donors indicate the recipient-derived cell sources of the recovery. Transplantations of scaffolds populated with splenic stromal cells or without them afforded no restoration of the characteristic splenic architecture.

conclusionsAllogeneic subcutaneous transplantation of splenic fragments in a mouse model leads to their structural recovery within 30 days, with full reconstitution of the monocyte-macrophage, megakaryocyte and B lymphocyte populations. The circulating hematopoietic cells provide the likely source for the cell composition recovery.

Indexed as

SpleenSplenectomyAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalMaleMiceT-LymphocytesTransplantation, AutologousHematopoietic cellsLymphocytesMacrophagesRegenerationSpleenTransplantation

Identifiers

PMID36991509
PMCPMC10053607
OpenAlexW4361284865

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.