Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Exosome Source Matters: A Comprehensive Review from the Perspective of Diverse Cellular Origins

Chen Y., Qi W., Wang Z., Niu F.

Narrative Review, published in Pharmaceutics (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Pharmaceutics (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
40006514
PMCID
PMC11858990
DOI
10.3390/pharmaceutics17020147
Citations
18

Abstract (original English)

Exosomes have emerged as promising therapeutic agents in regenerative medicine. This review introduces a novel cell type-oriented perspective to systematically analyze exosomal properties in regenerative therapies. To our knowledge, this review is the first to comprehensively compare exosomes based on cellular source type, offering unprecedented insights into selecting optimal exosome producers for targeted regenerative applications. Factors beyond cellular origin influencing exosomal therapeutic efficacy, such as donor sites and collection methods, are also explored here. By synthesizing key advances, we propose promising research directions in the end. We aim to accelerate the development of more effective exosome-based regenerative therapies and highlight underexplored directions in this rapidly evolving field.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.