Perivascular cells in blood vessel regeneration
Wanjare M., Kusuma S., Gerecht S.
Narrative Review, published in Biotechnol J (2013) — 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
- Biotechnol J (2013)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 23554249
- PMCID
- PMC3743428
- DOI
- 10.1002/biot.201200199
- Citations
- 66
Abstract (original English)
Vascular engineering seeks to design and construct functional blood vessels comprising endothelial cells (ECs) and perivascular cells (PCs), with the ultimate goal of clinical translation. While EC behavior has been extensively investigated, PCs play an equally significant role in the development of novel regenerative strategies, providing functionality and stability to vessels. The two major classes of PCs are vascular smooth muscle cells (vSMCs) and pericytes; vSMCs can be further sub-classified as either contractile or synthetic. The inclusion of these cell types is crucial for successful regeneration of blood vessels. Furthermore, understanding distinctions between vSMCs and pericytes will enable improved therapeutics in a tissue-specific manner. Here we focus on the approaches and challenges facing the use of PCs in vascular regeneration, including their characteristics, stem cell sources, and interactions with ECs. Finally, we discuss biochemical and microRNA (miR) regulators of PC behavior and engineering approaches that mimic various cues affecting PC function.
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.