Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39806427›Full record

ArticleJournal of nanobiotechnology2025

Clinical-grade extracellular vesicles derived from umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells: preclinical development and first-in-human intra-articular validation as therapeutics for knee osteoarthritis.

Aliosha I Figueroa-Valdés, Patricia Luz-Crawford, Yeimi Herrera-Luna, Nicolás Georges-Calderón, Cynthia García, Hugo E Tobar, María Jesús Araya, José Matas, Darío Donoso-Meneses, Catalina de la Fuente and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nanobiotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

25 authors.

Aliosha I Figueroa-Valdés *Laboratorio de Medicina Nano-Regenerativa, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7431-5046
Patricia Luz-Crawford *Laboratorio de Inmunología Celular y Molecular, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0067-7743
Yeimi Herrera-LunaLaboratorio de Inmunología Celular y Molecular, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4301-6083
Nicolás Georges-CalderónLaboratorio de Medicina Nano-Regenerativa, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2365-9807
Cynthia GarcíaLaboratorio de Inmunología Celular y Molecular, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-8332-3214
Hugo E TobarLaboratorio de Medicina Nano-Regenerativa, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9958-6253
María Jesús ArayaLaboratorio de Inmunología Celular y Molecular, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4870-2912
José MatasCentro de Terapia Celular, Clínica Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.
Darío Donoso-MenesesLaboratorio de Medicina Nano-Regenerativa, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6131-6664
Catalina de la FuenteConsorcio REGENERO, Chilean Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, Santiago, Chile.
Jimena CuencaLaboratorio de Medicina Nano-Regenerativa, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1306-919X
Eliseo ParraConsorcio REGENERO, Chilean Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, Santiago, Chile.
Fernando LilloConsorcio REGENERO, Chilean Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, Santiago, Chile.
Cristóbal VarelaDepartmento de Radiología, Clínica Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.
María Ignacia CádizLaboratorio de Medicina Nano-Regenerativa, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4291-8918
Rolando VernalLaboratorio de Biología Periodontal, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1391-320X
Alexander OrtloffDepartamento de Ciencias Veterinarias y Salud Pública, Facultad de Recursos Naturales, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Temuco, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9899-5434
Gino NardocciLaboratorio de Biología Molecular y Bioinformática, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2342-6480
Verónica CastañedaLaboratorio de Biología Molecular y Bioinformática, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8850-4806
Catalina Adasme-VidalLaboratorio de Medicina Nano-Regenerativa, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.
Maximiliano Kunze-KüllmerConsorcio REGENERO, Chilean Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-3531-1791
Yessia HidalgoLaboratorio de Medicina Nano-Regenerativa, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5203-3686
Francisco EspinozaConsorcio REGENERO, Chilean Consortium for Regenerative Medicine, Santiago, Chile.
Maroun Khoury *Laboratorio de Medicina Nano-Regenerativa, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. mkhoury@uandes.cl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9965-6266
Francisca Alcayaga-Miranda *Laboratorio de Medicina Nano-Regenerativa, Centro de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica (CiiB), Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. falcayaga@uandes.cl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6562-5699

Funding

Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación 1211353Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación 2022-21220091Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo FB210024Corporación de Fomento de la Producción 13CTI-21522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a joint disease characterized by articular cartilage degradation. Persistent low-grade inflammation defines OA pathogenesis, with crucial involvement of pro-inflammatory M1-like macrophages. While mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) and their small extracellular vesicles (sEV) hold promise for OA treatment, achieving consistent clinical-grade sEV products remains a significant challenge. This study aims to develop fully characterized, reproducible, clinical-grade batches of sEV derived from umbilical cord (UC)-MSC for the treatment of OA while assessing its efficacy and safety. Initially, a standardized, research-grade manufacturing protocol was established to ensure consistent sEV production. UC-MSC-sEV characterization under non-cGMP conditions showed consistent miRNA and protein profiles, suggesting their potential for standardized manufacturing. In vitro studies evaluated the efficacy, safety, and potency of sEV; animal studies confirmed their effectiveness and safety. In vitro, UC-MSC-sEV polarized macrophages to an anti-inflammatory M2b-like phenotype, through STAT1 modulation, indicating their potential to create an anti-inflammatory environment in the affected joints. In silico studies confirmed sEV's immunosuppressive signature through miRNA and proteome analysis. In an OA mouse model, sEV injected intra-articularly (IA) induced hyaline cartilage regeneration, validated by histological and μCT analyses. The unique detection of sEV signals within the knee joint over time highlights its safety profile by confirming the retention of sEV in the joint. The product development of UC-MSC-sEV involved refining, standardizing, and validating processes in compliance with GMP standards. The initial assessment of the safety of the clinical-grade product via IA administration in a first-in-human study showed no adverse effects after a 12 month follow-up period. These results support the progress of this sEV-based therapy in an early-phase clinical trial, the details of which are presented and discussed in this work. This study provides data on using UC-MSC-sEV as local therapy for OA, highlighting their regenerative and anti-inflammatory properties and safety in preclinical and a proof-of-principle clinical application.

Indexed as

Extracellular VesiclesMesenchymal Stem CellsOsteoarthritis, KneeUmbilical CordAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularMacrophagesMaleMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationMiceMicroRNAsMicroRNAsExosomesFirst-in-humanMacrophage polarizationManufacturingMesenchymalOsteoarthritisSmall extracellular vesiclesStem cellsStromal cells

Identifiers

PMID39806427
PMCPMC11730155

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.