Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37780829›Full record

ArticleJOR spine2023

Preclinical to clinical translation for intervertebral disc repair: Effects of species-specific scale, metabolism, and matrix synthesis rates on cell-based regeneration.

Emily E McDonnell, Niamh Wilson, Marcos N Barcellona, Tara Ní Néill, Jessica Bagnall, Pieter A J Brama, Gráinne M Cunniffe, Stacey L Darwish, Joseph S Butler, Conor T Buckley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JOR spine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Fibulin-3 Regulates Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinases 3 to Inhibit Senescence in Intervertebral Disc Nucleus Pulposus Cells].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emily E McDonnellTrinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin The University of Dublin Dublin Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5064-9591
Niamh WilsonTrinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin The University of Dublin Dublin Ireland.
Marcos N BarcellonaTrinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin The University of Dublin Dublin Ireland.
Tara Ní NéillTrinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin The University of Dublin Dublin Ireland.
Jessica BagnallTrinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin The University of Dublin Dublin Ireland.
Pieter A J BramaTrinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin The University of Dublin Dublin Ireland.
Gráinne M CunniffeNational Spinal Injuries Unit Mater Misericordiae University Hospital Dublin Ireland.
Stacey L DarwishNational Spinal Injuries Unit Mater Misericordiae University Hospital Dublin Ireland.
Joseph S ButlerTrinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin The University of Dublin Dublin Ireland.
Conor T BuckleyTrinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin The University of Dublin Dublin Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7452-4534
Trinity College Dublin · IEUniversity College Dublin · IERoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A significant hurdle for potential cell-based therapies is the subsequent survival and regenerative capacity of implanted cells. While many exciting developments have demonstrated promise preclinically, cell-based therapies for intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration fail to translate equivalent clinical efficacy. Aims: This work aims to ascertain the clinical relevance of both a small and large animal model by experimentally investigating and comparing these animal models to human from the perspective of anatomical scale and their cellular metabolic and regenerative potential. Materials and Methods: First, this work experimentally investigated species-specific geometrical scale, native cell density, nutrient metabolism, and matrix synthesis rates for rat, goat, and human disc cells in a 3D microspheroid configuration. Second, these parameters were employed in silico to elucidate species-specific nutrient microenvironments and predict differences in temporal regeneration between animal models. Results: This work presents in silico models which correlate favorably to preclinical literature in terms of the capabilities of animal regeneration and predict that compromised nutrition is not a significant challenge in small animal discs. On the contrary, it highlights a very fine clinical balance between an adequate cell dose for sufficient repair, through de novo matrix deposition, without exacerbating the human microenvironmental niche. Discussion: Overall, this work aims to provide a path towards understanding the effect of cell injection number on the nutrient microenvironment and the "time to regeneration" between preclinical animal models and the large human IVD. While these findings help to explain failed translation of promising preclinical data and the limited results emerging from clinical trials at present, they also enable the research field and clinicians to manage expectations on cell-based regeneration. Conclusion: Ultimately, this work provides a platform to inform the design of clinical trials, and as computing power and software capabilities increase in the future, it is conceivable that generation of patient-specific models could be used for patient assessment, as well as pre- and intraoperative planning.

Indexed as

animal modelscell therapiesin silicometabolismregeneration

Identifiers

PMID37780829
PMCPMC10540833
OpenAlexW4386545509

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.