Roles and therapeutic potential of different extracellular vesicle subtypes on traumatic brain injury
Dong X., Dong JF., Zhang J.
Narrative Review, published in Cell Commun Signal (2023) — 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 Commun Signal (2023)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 37596642
- PMCID
- PMC10436659
- DOI
- 10.1186/s12964-023-01165-6
- Citations
- 19
Abstract (original English)
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of injury-related disability and death around the world, but the clinical stratification, diagnosis, and treatment of complex TBI are limited. Due to their unique properties, extracellular vesicles (EVs) are emerging candidates for being biomarkers of traumatic brain injury as well as serving as potential therapeutic targets. However, the effects of different extracellular vesicle subtypes on the pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury are very different, or potentially even opposite. Before extracellular vesicles can be used as targets for TBI therapy, it is necessary to classify different extracellular vesicle subtypes according to their functions to clarify different strategies for EV-based TBI therapy. The purpose of this review is to discuss contradictory effects of different EV subtypes on TBI, and to propose treatment ideas based on different EV subtypes to maximize their benefits for the recovery of TBI patients. Video Abstract.
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.