ArticleJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2026
Phenotyping of Human Pulp Cells After Cryopreservation.
Article in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 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.
- Phenotyping of Human Pulp Cells After Cryopreservation.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare cell viability, morphology, cell yield, and stem cell-associated marker expression of cryopreserved human dental pulp cells (HDPCs) across different passages following thawing and serial in vitro expansion. HDPCs were isolated from three healthy donors, cryopreserved at -80°C for 3 months, and subsequently evaluated at different passages. Non-cryopreserved passage 0 (P0) cells were used as the baseline control. Cell viability was assessed using the MTT assay, cell morphology and complementary cell counting by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and phenotypic marker expression (CD44, CD146, STRO-1, and CD45) by flow cytometry. P6 and P10 showed significantly higher cell viability than P0 and P12 (p < 0.05), whereas SEM-based cell counting showed a higher number of cells at P6 than at P0, P3, and P12 (p < 0.05). The percentage of CD146-positive cells decreased from 32.1% and 32.3% at P0 and P3, respectively, to 4.9% and 5.2% at P10 and P12 (p < 0.05). A similar passage-dependent reduction was observed for STRO-1 expression. Overall, HDPCs exhibited passage-dependent changes following cryopreservation, thawing, and serial expansion. Intermediate passages, particularly P6, showed favourable cell viability and yield, whereas earlier passages better preserved progenitor-associated phenotypic markers. These findings highlight the importance of passage selection when cryopreserved HDPCs are expanded for subsequent experimental 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.