ArticleCornea2026
Descemet Membrane Versus Amniotic Membrane for Limbal Stem Cell Therapy.
Article in Cornea, 2026. 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.
- Acellular Bowman Layer and Descemet Membrane Allografts for Non-Ectatic Anterior Corneal Diseases: A Narrative Review of Emerging Evidence.Ophthalmology and therapy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare biomarker expression and proliferation rates of limbal epithelial stem cells (LESCs) cultured on Descemet membrane (DM) versus amniotic membrane (AM). To investigate the suitability of DM as a potential long-term scaffold for transplantation of cultivated limbal stem cells on the ocular surface.
methodsDonor limbal epithelial cells were pooled, reseeded, and expanded on decellularized DM and AM. LESC biomarker expression was assessed by In-Cell Western and immunocytochemical staining. Cell proliferation was evaluated by BrdU incorporation. Airlift organ cultures were performed on DM-limbal tissue constructs and analyzed with 3D immunofluorescence microscopy to determine if DM could support stratified epithelial growth. Suitability of DM as a potential long-term scaffold for cultured LESCs on the cornea was assessed by evaluating transparency and resistance to collagenase digestion versus AM.
resultsCultured cells exhibited higher expression of putative LESC markers (ABCG2, ABCB5), lower expression of transient amplifying cell marker (p63α), and lower cell proliferation rates on DM versus AM, indicating DM maintained LESC stemness better than AM. Under airlifting conditions, cells on DM stratified with differentiation and expression of corneal epithelial cell biomarkers in superficial layers, while maintaining LESC biomarker expression in basal layers. DM was more transparent and resistant to collagenase digestion than AM.
conclusionsDM promotes LESC stemness better than AM in ex vivo culture and can support stratified corneal epithelium. DM is also a more transparent and potentially durable epithelial scaffold than AM. DM is a promising new alternative to AM for limbal stem cell therapy.
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.