Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30486897›Full record

ArticleStem cell research & therapy2018

Non-invasive imaging reveals conditions that impact distribution and persistence of cells after in vivo administration.

Lauren Scarfe, Arthur Taylor, Jack Sharkey, Rachel Harwood, Michael Barrow, Joan Comenge, Lydia Beeken, Cai Astley, Ilaria Santeramo, Claire Hutchinson and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cell research & therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Receptor-Mediated SPION Labeling of CD4Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  17. Confined Migration Drives Stem Cell Differentiation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Lauren ScarfeDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Arthur TaylorDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jack SharkeyDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Rachel HarwoodDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Michael BarrowDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Joan ComengeInstitute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lydia BeekenDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Cai AstleyDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Ilaria SanteramoDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Claire HutchinsonDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lorenzo ResselDepartment of Veterinary Pathology and Public Health, Institute of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jon SmytheNHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.
Eric AustinNHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.
Raphael LevyInstitute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Matthew J RosseinskyDepartment of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Dave J AdamsSchool of Chemistry, College of Science and Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Harish PoptaniDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Brian K ParkDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Patricia MurrayDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. P.A.Murray@liverpool.ac.uk.
Bettina WilmDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. bwilm@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K015931/1Medical Research Council MR/K026739/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCell-based regenerative medicine therapies are now frequently tested in clinical trials. In many conditions, cell therapies are administered systemically, but there is little understanding of their fate, and adverse events are often under-reported. Currently, it is only possible to assess safety and fate of cell therapies in preclinical studies, specifically by monitoring animals longitudinally using multi-modal imaging approaches. Here, using a suite of in vivo imaging modalities to explore the fate of a range of human and murine cells, we investigate how route of administration, cell type and host immune status affect the fate of administered cells.

methodsWe applied a unique imaging platform combining bioluminescence, optoacoustic and magnetic resonance imaging modalities to assess the safety of different human and murine cell types by following their biodistribution and persistence in mice following administration into the venous or arterial system.

resultsLongitudinal imaging analyses (i) suggested that the intra-arterial route may be more hazardous than intravenous administration for certain cell types, (ii) revealed that the potential of a mouse mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC) line to form tumours depended on administration route and mouse strain and (iii) indicated that clinically tested human umbilical cord (hUC)-derived MSCs can transiently and unexpectedly proliferate when administered intravenously to mice.

conclusionsIn order to perform an adequate safety assessment of potential cell-based therapies, a thorough understanding of cell biodistribution and fate post administration is required. The non-invasive imaging platform used here can expose not only the general organ distribution of these therapies, but also a detailed view of their presence within different organs and, importantly, tumourigenic potential. Our observation that the hUC-MSCs but not the human bone marrow (hBM)-derived MSCs persisted for a period in some animals suggests that therapies with these cells should proceed with caution.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationAnimalsCarcinogenesisCell LineHumansInjections, IntravenousMagnetic Resonance ImagingMesenchymal Stem CellsMice, Inbred BALB CMice, SCIDOsteosarcomaTissue DistributionUmbilical CordCell therapiesCell trackingMesenchymal stem/stromal cellsMulti-modal imagingPreclinical modelsSafety

Identifiers

PMID30486897
PMCPMC6264053

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.