ReviewMolecular biology reports2025
Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for type 2 diabetes: mechanisms, clinical evidence, and future directions.
Review in Molecular biology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular and Cellular Analysis of Lipogems-Processed Lipoaspirates for Evaluating the Efficacy of Treatments in Regenerative Medicine.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Article
- GLP-1 receptor agonists as multisystem therapies: from glycemic control to cardiorenal, neuroimmune, and metabolic disease.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2026Review
- Cognitive-Enhancing Effects of Bioactive Compounds and Traditional Herbal Medicines in Elderly Patients with Metabolic Syndrome.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes: Synergistic β-Cell Regeneration, Immune Modulation, and Exosome-Mediated Glucose Homeostasis.Stem cells international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global public-health challenge characterized by insulin resistance, progressive β-cell dysfunction, and chronic low-grade inflammation. Conventional therapies often control glycaemia but do not consistently prevent disease progression or complications. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), derived from bone marrow, adipose tissue, and the umbilical cord, have been investigated for T2DM due to their immunomodulatory and paracrine regenerative properties. Preclinical studies and early-phase clinical trials (2000-2025) have reported modest improvements in glycaemic indices, including mean reductions in HbA1c and decreases in exogenous insulin requirements in some cohorts, rather than the uniform 1-2% reduction previously stated. Signals of benefit have also been described in diabetic complications such as nephropathy and wound healing. However, these findings derive largely from small, heterogeneous studies with short follow-up, and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Recent strategies to enhance MSC efficacy (for example, genetic modification such as OCN-19 overexpression) show preliminary promise but require more rigorous evaluation. Key challenges that currently limit clinical translation include variability in MSC sources and manufacturing, impaired cell function in the diabetic microenvironment, small and underpowered trials, and limited long-term safety and cost-effectiveness data. This review synthesizes mechanistic and clinical evidence for MSC therapy in T2DM, highlights recent technological advances, and outlines priorities for future research, notably standardized GMP-compliant production, robust randomized multicenter trials with long-term follow-up, and the development of predictive biomarkers to identify likely responders and optimize patient selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41117868What 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.