Genetic Stability of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Regenerative Medicine Applications: A Fundamental Biosafety Aspect
Neri S.
Narrative Review, published in Int J Mol Sci (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Int J Mol Sci (2019)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 31096604
- PMCID
- PMC6566307
- DOI
- 10.3390/ijms20102406
- Citations
- 136
Abstract (original English)
Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSC) show widespread application for a variety of clinical conditions; therefore, their use necessitates continuous monitoring of their safety. The risk assessment of mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies cannot be separated from an accurate and deep knowledge of their biological properties and in vitro and in vivo behavior. One of the most relevant safety issues is represented by the genetic stability of MSCs, that can be altered during in vitro manipulation, frequently required before clinical application. MSC genetic stability has the potential to influence the transformation and the therapeutic effect of these cells. At present, karyotype evaluation represents the definitely prevailing assessment of MSC stability, but DNA alterations of smaller size should not be underestimated. This review will focus on current scientific knowledge about the genetic stability of mesenchymal stem cells. The techniques used and possible improvements together with regulatory aspects will also be discussed.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.