ArticleBMC nephrology2025
Comparative analysis of commercial human primary mesangial cell, implications for experimental design.
Article in BMC nephrology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMesangial cells (MCs) are involved in several glomerular diseases such as IgA nephropathy and diabetic kidney disease. In vitro work on human MCs is mainly conducted on primary MCs. However, cells from different donors could be significantly different, thus potentially affecting the outcome of the experiments.
methodWe have compared commercially available primary human MCs from two different sources: HMCv1 and HMCv2. The cells were characterized using qPCR, western blot, and immunofluorescence. Response to PDGF-BB was assessed with proliferation assays, proteomics, and qPCR. Response to angiotensin II was assessed through contractility assay and response to IL-1β, diabetic milieu and TGFβ1 with qPCR.
resultsCells from both sources expressed mesangial markers. HMCv1, but not HMCv2, showed significant contractility in response to angiotensin II. Both HMCv1 and 2 significantly increased their proliferation rate in response to PDGF-BB. Proteomics revealed a stronger response to PDGF-BB for HMCv1 in respect to HMCv2, though similar pathways were regulated in both. IL-1β stimulus was stronger in HMCv1 in terms of increased expression of IL6 and CCL2/MCP1 mRNA. Diabetic milieu increased expression of IL-6 for both HMCv1 and 2, but significantly higher for HMCv1. TGFβ1 gave similar results in terms of IL-6 expression for cells from both sources. In addition, a list of 144 potential mesangial markers was compiled, that can be used for identification of MCs in omics data.
conclusionThis study shows that there are broad differences between sources of primary human MCs. The potential differences between clones of primary MCs need to be carefully considered when conducting in vitro experiments.
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.