ArticleStem cell research & therapy2025
An evaluation of spraying as a delivery method for human mesenchymal stem cells suspended in low-methyl pectin solutions.
Article in Stem cell research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMesenchymal stem cells have shown promise in many areas of regenerative medicine due to the anti-inflammatory and pro-regenerative effects of the secreted factors. However, successful delivery remains problematic, particularly for delivery to areas such as the brain. Spray delivery is a method investigated in wound care and lung injury, which may be applicable for brain delivery to patients already requiring surgery. To retain therapeutic mesenchymal stem cells at the delivery site, biomaterials can be employed; pectin is a biocompatible, sprayable, and mucoadhesive material, which could prove suitable for spray delivery of cells for therapeutic uses.
methodsThe biocompatibility of four grades of low-methyl pectin gelled by addition of calcium was assessed using SH-SY5Y cells. After, mesenchymal stem cells were suspended within the four different grades of low-methyl pectin solutions and sprayed using a syringe-driven spray device. The suitability was then assessed by cell viability testing, flow cytometry to test for surface markers, and differential gene expression studies to understand the effects of both the pectin and the spraying process on the gene expression of the cells.
resultsAll four grades of low-methyl pectin were biocompatible with SH-SY5Y cells. The syringe-driven spray device delivered human mesenchymal stem cells to well plates with high viability, and suspending these cells in pectin solutions for spraying did not negatively affect the viability. The grade of pectin named CU-701 was the best grade based on results of the flow cytometry, whereby the surface marker expression was not altered from the control cells. The RNA sequencing showing the differential expression showed that the process of spraying the cells did not alter gene expression compared to the control, however the pectin, and the presence of calcium used to induce gelation of the pectin, did lead to altered gene expression in cells.
conclusionSpraying is a suitable delivery method for the mesenchymal stem cells, showing no detrimental effect on the cells. Pectin shows little effect on the viability of the cells, however the use of calcium to gel the pectin appears to affect the expression of several genes.
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.