ReviewClinical and translational medicine2026
After delivery: How recipient cells shape the fate and function of transplanted mitochondria.
Review in Clinical and translational medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMitochondrial transplantation is built on a simple idea: failing cells might be rescued by healthy mitochondria. The approach has entered early clinical testing, and encapsulation and cell-type targeting have improved uptake in selected systems. Better delivery, however, does not explain the therapy. MAIN BODY: Internalised donor mitochondria encounter an established network, quality-control machinery and sensors for mitochondrial material. Donor material may remain in the endolysosomal system or reach the cytosol. Cytosolic fates include network integration, clearance and a candidate functional contribution without fusion. Intracellular processing may also generate bioactive cargo. These fates imply different mechanisms and evidence requirements. This Review examines how recipient cells shape the contribution of internalised mitochondria, while recognising extracellular routes to benefit. We distinguish direct transplantation evidence from mechanistic support drawn from endogenous mitochondrial biology and natural intercellular transfer. The required donor fate and duration depend on the therapeutic task. Transient rescue may rely on short-term donor function or productive processing in specific models; sustained support may depend on continued donor function, recipient adaptation or redosing. Durable mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) correction requires donor-mtDNA retention and replication.
conclusionsLinking these tasks to product design, safety assessment and clinical endpoints shifts the question from how many mitochondria enter cells to what they accomplish after arrival. KEY POINTS: Recipient-cell handling shapes what transplanted mitochondria do after uptake. Uptake, structural integration and donor mitochondrial DNA retention require distinct evidence. Transient rescue, sustained support and durable mitochondrial DNA correction impose different requirements. Therapeutic goals should guide donor selection, product testing and clinical endpoints.
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.