Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40038737›Full record

ReviewJournal of translational medicine2025

Analysis of the measurements used as potency tests for the 31 US FDA-approved cell therapy products.

Carl G Simon, Erich H Bozenhardt, Christina M Celluzzi, David Dobnik, Melanie L Grant, Uma Lakshmipathy, Thiana Nebel, Linda Peltier, Anthony Ratcliffe, James L Sherley and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  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

14 authors.

Carl G SimonBiosystems & Biomaterials Division, National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD, USA. carl.simon@nist.gov.ORCID 0000-0001-5209-3577
Erich H BozenhardtUnited Therapeutics Corporation, Regenerative Medicine Operations, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA.
Christina M CelluzziAssociation for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB), Bethesda, MD, USA.
David DobnikNiba Labs, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Melanie L GrantDepartment of Pediatrics, Marcus Center for Cellular & Gene Therapies, Correlative Studies Laboratory, Emory University School of Medicine, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Uma LakshmipathyPharma Services, Science & Technology, Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Diego, CA, USA.
Thiana NebelMedical Education, Sports Medicine & Orthobiologics, Medical Sales Institute, San Diego, CA, USA.
Linda PeltierCellular Therapy Lab, Research Institute of McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Anthony RatcliffeSynthasome, Inc, San Diego, CA, USA.
James L SherleyAsymmetrex, LLC, Boston, MA, USA.
Glyn N StaceyInternational Stem Cell Biobanking Initiative, Barley, Herts, UK.
Rouzbeh R TaghizadehKendall Innovations, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Eddie H P TanCentre of Regulatory Excellence, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Sandrine VessillierScience, Research and Innovation Group - Biotherapeutics and Advanced Therapies Division, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, South Mimms, Hertfordshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cell- and Tissue-Based TherapyDrug ApprovalUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationBiological AssayHumansUnited StatesCell therapy productPotencyPotency testRegenerative medicine

Identifiers

PMID40038737
PMCPMC11877884

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.