ReviewFrontiers in physiology2026
Rethinking mitochondrial isolation for the next generation of mitochondrial therapies.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mitochondrial isolation is fundamental to the study of mitochondrial biology and is increasingly relevant to emerging therapeutic applications such as mitochondrial transplantation. However, isolation procedures can substantially influence mitochondrial yield, purity, structural integrity, and bioenergetic function, making method selection an important determinant of experimental and translational outcomes. This review examines current mitochondrial isolation strategies, including physical disruption, chemical permeabilization, emerging microfluidic and automated dissociation technologies, and downstream separation approaches such as differential centrifugation, density-gradient centrifugation, filtration, and immunoaffinity enrichment. Each approach offers distinct advantages and limitations depending on the biological source, processing requirements, and intended application. Conventional methods remain widely used because of their accessibility and flexibility, but may introduce operator variability, mechanical stress, contamination, or loss of mitochondrial function. More selective purification strategies can improve sample purity, although often at the cost of additional processing time, technical complexity, and reduced recovery. Emerging technologies, including standardized mechanical dissociation and microfluidic disruption, may provide greater control over mitochondrial release, but require broader validation across tissues and sample volumes. A persistent challenge across isolation workflows is balancing mitochondrial recovery with preservation of organelle integrity and function. Future progress will require standardized, scalable isolation strategies that consistently preserve mitochondrial quality across different biological sources and downstream applications. Continued refinement of these approaches will be essential for advancing mitochondrial research and supporting the development of mitochondrial-based therapies.
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.