Regenerative cells for transplantation in hepatic failure.
Ishikawa T., Banas A., Teratani T., Iwaguro H., Ochiya T.
Narrative Review, published in Cell Transplant (2012) — 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
- Cell Transplant (2012)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 22793046
- DOI
- 10.3727/096368911X605286
Abstract (original English)
Human embryonic stem (ES) cells and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells have an enormous potential; however, their potential clinical application is being arrested due to various limitations such as teratoma formation followed by tumorigenesis, emergent usage, and the quality control of cells, as well as safety issues regarding long-term culture are also delaying their clinical application. In addition, human ES cells have two crucial issues: immunogenicity and ethical issues associated with their clinical application. The efficient generation of human iPS cells requires gene transfer, yet the mechanism underlying pluripotent stem cell induction has not yet been fully elucidated. Otherwise, although human adult regenerative cells including mesenchymal stem cells have a limited capacity for differentiation, they are nevertheless promising candidates for tissue regeneration in a clinical setting. This review highlights the use of regenerative cells for transplantation in hepatic failure.
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.