ArticleStem cell research & therapy2025
Juvenile vs. adult skeletal muscle transplants in the treatment of volumetric muscle loss injury.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVolumetric muscle loss (VML) causes irreversible structural and functional deficits by removing myofibers, nerves, vasculature, extracellular matrix, and satellite cells, the resident muscle stem cells essential for regeneration. Skeletal muscle transplantation can restore tissue volume and reintroduce regenerative cells, yet functional outcomes remain incomplete. Age of the donor muscle has not been evaluated, despite evidence that juvenile muscle contains higher satellite cell density and greater myogenic plasticity than adult muscle. We hypothesized that these features would yield superior regenerative outcomes when juvenile muscle is used as a transplant source.
methodsTibialis anterior (TA) muscles from juvenile (21 d), adolescent (34 d), and adult (~ 120 d) male Lewis rats were compared for myofiber morphology, satellite cell density, and in-vitro myogenic behavior. GFP⁺ juvenile or adult muscle was then transplanted into standardized VML defects (~ 15-20% TA volume) in adult rats. Seven weeks post-surgery, in-vivo isometric strength, donor fiber integration, satellite cell distribution, and centralized nuclei were assessed.
resultsJuvenile muscle exhibited ~ 15× greater satellite cell density than adult (122.8 ± 28.4 vs. 8.4 ± 3.3 cells/mm², p < 0.0001) with enhanced in-vitro differentiation (fusion index + 73% vs. adult, p = 0.0067). In-vivo, both juvenile and adult transplants restored myofiber number to control levels (juvenile: 11,369 ± 1,511; adult: 9,115 ± 1,274; controls: 10,316 ± 685) and improved strength versus untreated VML (juvenile: +50%, p = 0.0016; adult: +36%, p = 0.0299). No significant functional differences were observed between donor ages. Donor fibers integrated but remained small, with localized satellite cell enrichment and increased centralized nuclei in transplant regions, consistent with ongoing regeneration.
conclusionsJuvenile skeletal muscle displays cellular and structural attributes favorable for regeneration and superior in-vitro myogenic behavior compared to adult muscle. However, these advantages did not translate into greater short-term in-vivo recovery following VML transplantation. Enhancing donor fiber hypertrophy, neuromuscular integration, and satellite cell expansion beyond the transplant region, potentially through rehabilitation or pharmaceutical interventions, may be necessary to realize the full therapeutic potential of juvenile donor muscle for regenerative medicine applications.
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.