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

Non-viral gene delivery systems for tissue repair and regeneration

Wu P., Chen H., Jin R., Weng T., Ho JK., You C.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, Burns, published in J Transl Med (2018) — 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
J Transl Med (2018)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
29448962
PMCID
PMC5815227
DOI
10.1186/s12967-018-1402-1
Citations
73

Abstract (original English)

Critical tissue defects frequently result from trauma, burns, chronic wounds and/or surgery. The ideal treatment for such tissue loss is autografting, but donor sites are often limited. Tissue engineering (TE) is an inspiring alternative for tissue repair and regeneration (TRR). One of the current state-of-the-art methods for TRR is gene therapy. Non-viral gene delivery systems (nVGDS) have great potential for TE and have several advantages over viral delivery including lower immunogenicity and toxicity, better cell specificity, better modifiability, and higher productivity. However, there is no ideal nVGDS for TRR, hence, there is widespread research to improve their properties. This review introduces the basic principles and key aspects of commonly-used nVGDSs. We focus on recent advances in their applications, current challenges, and future directions.

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
NeuronsAnimalsHumansTissue EngineeringGene Transfer TechniquesRegenerationWound HealingTissue Scaffolds

Browse all related research

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

Related research