Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37770485›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Validation of airway porcine epithelial cells as an alternative to human in vitro preclinical studies.

Vincenzo Giuseppe Genna, Davide Adamo, Giulia Galaverni, Fabio Lepore, Federica Boraldi, Daniela Quaglino, Filippo Lococo, Graziella Pellegrini

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Identification ofFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    Review
  3. Airway Malacia: Stent Innovations and Emerging Ex Vivo Testing Platforms.Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. Pediatric cardiac surgery annual · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vincenzo Giuseppe Genna *Centre for Regenerative Medicine "Stefano Ferrari", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. vg.genna@gmail.com.
Davide Adamo *Centre for Regenerative Medicine "Stefano Ferrari", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Giulia GalaverniCentre for Regenerative Medicine "Stefano Ferrari", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Fabio LeporeCentre for Regenerative Medicine "Stefano Ferrari", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Federica BoraldiDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Daniela QuaglinoDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Filippo LococoThoracic Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Graziella PellegriniCentre for Regenerative Medicine "Stefano Ferrari", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. graziella.pellegrini@unimore.it.
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal models are currently used in several fields of biomedical research as useful alternatives to human-based studies. However, the obtained results do not always effectively translate into clinical applications, due to interspecies anatomical and physiological differences. Detailed comparability studies are therefore required to verify whether the selected animal species could be a representative model for the disease or for cellular process under investigation. This has proven to be fundamental to obtaining reliable data from preclinical studies. Among the different species, swine is deemed an excellent animal model in many fields of biological research, and has been largely used in respiratory medicine, considering the high homology between human and swine airways. In the context of in vitro studies, the validation of porcine airway epithelial cells as an alternative to human epithelial cells is crucial. In this paper, porcine and human tracheal and bronchial epithelial cells are compared in terms of in vivo tissue architecture and in vitro cell behaviour under standard and airlifted conditions, analyzing the regenerative, proliferative and differentiative potentials of these cells. We report multiple analogies between the two species, validating the employment of porcine airway epithelial cells for most in vitro preclinical studies, although with some limitations due to species-related divergences.

Indexed as

Epithelial CellsTracheaAnimalsHumansModels, AnimalSwine

Identifiers

PMID37770485
PMCPMC10539525
OpenAlexW4387136708

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.