ReviewJournal of translational medicine2025
Analysis of the measurements used as potency tests for the 31 US FDA-approved cell therapy products.
Review in Journal of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of Potency Assays for Therapeutic EVs: The Art of Congruence.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2026Article
- Opening New Horizons: Advanced Hematopoietic Stem Cell Expansion Strategies Bridging Cord Blood Therapy from Bench To Bedside.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Plying potency assays for immunotherapy of solid tumors.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Rapid assessment of immune effector cell-mediated cytotoxicity using mRNA lipid nanoparticles.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- The science of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL): perspectives from the SITC Surgery Committee.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell therapy product (CTP) developers face the significant challenge of developing appropriate potency tests for their CTPs. A review of the known potency tests used for the 31 United States Food and Drug Administration-approved CTPs (US FDA) can guide developers in designing effective potency tests for future CTPs. Data on these tests were primarily collected from publicly available regulatory documentation on the US FDA website (90%) as well as other sources (literature, company communications, etc.). Based on these data, an estimated 104 total potency tests have been used for the 31 CTPs. Of these, 33 are redacted (32%), leaving 71 non-redacted potency tests. On average, each CTP has 3.4 potency tests (standard deviation 2.0). The 71 non-redacted potency tests were categorized into 5 bins: "Viability and count" (37 tests, 52%), "Expression" (19 tests, 27%), "Bioassays" (7 tests, 7%), "Genetic modification" (6 tests, 9%) and "Histology" (2 tests, 3%). Measurements of gene or protein expression were used by 20 of the 31 CTPs (65%), and 19 CTPs (61%) used measurements of cell viability or cell count as a potency test. "Viability and count" and "Expression" are the two tests that have most often been used together for the same product, occurring for 16 CTPs (52%). It is unclear if bioassays are commonly used as potency tests since only 7 of 31 CTPs (23%) reported bioassays as potency tests. However, due to redactions, as many 24 (77%) CTPs could potentially have a bioassay as a potency test. Additionally, 26 of the 31 CTPs (84%) cite physicochemical assays (non-bioassays) as a potency test. This analysis of potency tests for approved CTPs provides valuable insights for developing potency tests for new CTPs.
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.