Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33063708›Full record

ArticleNeural regeneration research2021

The use of hydrogel-delivered extracellular vesicles in recovery of motor function in stroke: a testable experimental hypothesis for clinical translation including behavioral and neuroimaging assessment approaches.

Magdalini Tsintou, Kyriakos Dalamagkas, Tara L Moore, Yogesh Rathi, Marek Kubicki, Douglas L Rosene, Nikos Makris

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neural regeneration research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Evolution of Technology-Driven In Vitro Models for Neurodegenerative Diseases.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Drug delivery to the central nervous system.Nature reviews. Materials · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Magdalini TsintouDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurology Services, Center for Neural Systems Investigations, Center for Morphometric Analysis, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital; Department of Psychiatry, Psychiatry Neuroimaging Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; University College of London Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, Center for Nanotechnology & Regenerative Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Kyriakos DalamagkasUniversity College of London Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, Center for Nanotechnology & Regenerative Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston; The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann Research Center, The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.
Tara L MooreDepartment of Anatomy & Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Yogesh RathiDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurology Services, Center for Neural Systems Investigations, Center for Morphometric Analysis, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital; Department of Psychiatry, Psychiatry Neuroimaging Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Marek KubickiDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurology Services, Center for Neural Systems Investigations, Center for Morphometric Analysis, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital; Department of Psychiatry, Psychiatry Neuroimaging Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Douglas L RoseneDepartment of Anatomy & Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Nikos MakrisDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurology Services, Center for Neural Systems Investigations, Center for Morphometric Analysis, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital; Department of Psychiatry, Psychiatry Neuroimaging Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School; Department of Anatomy & Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Boston University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · USLondon Centre for Nanotechnology · GBMemorial Hermann · USMorpho (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neural tissue engineering, nanotechnology and neuroregeneration are diverse biomedical disciplines that have been working together in recent decades to solve the complex problems linked to central nervous system (CNS) repair. It is known that the CNS demonstrates a very limited regenerative capacity because of a microenvironment that impedes effective regenerative processes, making development of CNS therapeutics challenging. Given the high prevalence of CNS conditions such as stroke that damage the brain and place a severe burden on afflicted individuals and on society, it is of utmost significance to explore the optimum methodologies for finding treatments that could be applied to humans for restoration of function to pre-injury levels. Extracellular vesicles (EVs), also known as exosomes, when derived from mesenchymal stem cells, are one of the most promising approaches that have been attempted thus far, as EVs deliver factors that stimulate recovery by acting at the nanoscale level on intercellular communication while avoiding the risks linked to stem cell transplantation. At the same time, advances in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine have offered the potential of using hydrogels as bio-scaffolds in order to provide the stroma required for neural repair to occur, as well as the release of biomolecules facilitating or inducing the reparative processes. This review introduces a novel experimental hypothesis regarding the benefits that could be offered if EVs were to be combined with biocompatible injectable hydrogels. The rationale behind this hypothesis is presented, analyzing how a hydrogel might prolong the retention of EVs and maximize the localized benefit to the brain. This sustained delivery of EVs would be coupled with essential guidance cues and structural support from the hydrogel until neural tissue remodeling and regeneration occur. Finally, the importance of including non-human primate models in the clinical translation pipeline, as well as the added benefit of multi-modal neuroimaging analysis to establish non-invasive, in vivo, quantifiable imaging-based biomarkers for CNS repair are discussed, aiming for more effective and safe clinical translation of such regenerative therapies to humans.

Indexed as

cortical injuryexosomesextracellular vesicleshydrogelsneural tissue engineeringneural tissue repairneuroregenerationnon-human primatesstroke

Identifiers

PMID33063708
PMCPMC8067932
OpenAlexW3031600059

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.