ArticleCell regeneration (London, England)2026
HUMSCs repair CCl₄-induced chronic liver injury in rats via metabolic regulation.
Article in Cell regeneration (London, England), 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsTo explore the therapeutic effects of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (HUMSCs) on repairing CCl₄-induced chronic liver injury in rats via intravenous injection and to identify the associated key metabolites.
methodsCell experiments: THLE-2 cells were divided into blank control, CCl₄-treated, and CCl₄ + Exos groups. Cell viability was assessed using the CCK-8 assay, while levels of AST, ALT, and MDA were determined using commercial kits. Targeted metabolomics analysis was employed to identify differentially expressed metabolites. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was used to evaluate mitochondrial morphology, and immunofluorescence staining was performed to examine the colocalization of Exos with mitochondria. Animal experiments: 24 healthy SPF SD rats were randomly divided into healthy, CCl₄, and CCl₄ + HUMSCs groups (n = 8 per group). Serum samples were collected for biochemical detection and targeted metabolomics analyses, while liver tissues underwent histopathological examination. Immunofluorescence staining was employed to monitor HUMSCs enrichment.
resultsIn the CCl₄ + Exos group, cell viability was significantly restored, and the elevated levels of AST, ALT, and MDA were reversed, while mitochondrial ultrastructure was ameliorated with successful Exos-mitochondria colocalization. Targeted metabolomics confirmed the presence of differentially expressed metabolites exhibiting consistent trends in both cellular and animal models. In the animal study, the CCl₄ group showed significant liver dysfunction and hepatic pathology characterized by hepatocyte steatosis and fibrous tissue hyperplasia. In contrast, the CCl₄ + HUMSCs group demonstrated markedly improved liver function and reduced pathological changes. Biochemical analysis revealed significant differences in ALT, AST, ALB, TBIL, TP, UREA, CR, and UA levels between the CCl₄ + HUMSCs and CCl₄ groups. Serum metabolomics analysis showed that compared with the CCl₄ group, 1,7-Dimethylxanthine and Xanthosine were significantly upregulated, while Succinic Acid, (S)-2-Hydroxybutanoic Acid, oxidized glutathione, and 3'-Sialyllactose were significantly downregulated in the CCl₄ + HUMSCs group.
conclusionHUMSCs treatment significantly reduced hepatic steatosis and fibrosis compared with the CCl₄ group alone. Metabolomic analysis suggests that the underlying mechanisms may involve upregulation of propanoate metabolism and increased taurochenodeoxycholic acid levels, which warrant further investigation.
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.