ArticleMolecular and cellular biochemistry2025
Characterization of extracellular vesicles derived from cortical bone stem cells compared with mesenchymal stem cells.
Article in Molecular and cellular biochemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cortical bone stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles: a preliminary characterization demanding mechanistic and functional validation.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are considered useful therapeutic tools in regenerative medicine. They are an alternative to stem cells and drug delivery vehicles, but their properties differ depending on their cell type of origin. Previously, we reported differences in the cellular properties between mouse cortical bone-derived stem cells (mCBSCs) and mouse mesenchymal stem cells (mMSCs). In this study, we aimed to clarify the characteristics of mCBSC-derived EVs (mCBSC-EVs), whose properties remain unclear, and compared them with those of mMSC-EVs. Proteomic analysis identified 3470 proteins in both EVs, of which 224 and 217 were unique to mCBSC-EVs and mMSC-EVs, respectively. Glycomic analysis using lectin microarrays showed significant differences in the relative intensities of various types of lectins between mCBSC-EVs and mMSC-EVs. Specifically, fucosylated glycans, sialic acid structures, and glycans with bisecting N-acetylglucosamine were differentially expressed between mCBSC-EVs and mMSC-EVs. Finally, we examined the uptake and functional effects of EVs on mouse endothelial cells (mECs). mECs preferentially took up mCBSC-EVs than mMSC-EVs. Moreover, mCBSC-EVs resulted in greater upregulation of adhesion and inflammatory molecules in response to TNF-α stimulation than did mMSC-EVs. Furthermore, both mCBSC-EVs and mMSC-EVs elicited comparable levels of tube-like structure formation by mECs. Taken together, our results revealed that mCBSC-EVs and mMSC-EVs exhibit differences in cargo contents and biological action, suggesting the predominance of mCBSC-EVs. Therefore, CBSC-EVs may be useful for treating various physiological and pathological conditions, including wound healing and angiogenesis in ischemic diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40705153What 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.