Cited by 54Liver physiology and pathologyTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicinePluripotent Stem Cells Research

Assessing the therapeutic potential of lab-made hepatocytes

Open access
Rezvani, Milad, Grimm, Andrew A., Willenbring, Holger·2016·Hepatology

Abstract

Hepatocyte transplantation has potential as a bridge or even alternative to whole‐organ liver transplantation. Because donor livers are scarce, realizing this potential requires the development of alternative cell sources. To be therapeutically effective, surrogate hepatocytes must replicate the complex function and ability to proliferate of primary human hepatocytes. Ideally, they are also autologous to eliminate the need for immune suppression, which can have severe side effects and may not be sufficient to prevent rejection long term. In the past decade, several methods have been developed to generate hepatocytes from other readily and safely accessible somatic cells. These lab‐made hepatocytes show promise in animal models of liver diseases, supporting the feasibility of autologous liver cell therapies. Here, we review recent preclinical studies exemplifying different types of lab‐made hepatocytes that can potentially be used in autologous liver cell therapies. To define the therapeutic efficacy of current lab‐made hepatocytes, we compare them to primary human hepatocytes, focusing on engraftment efficiency and posttransplant proliferation and function. In addition to summarizing published results, we discuss animal models and assays effective in assessing therapeutic efficacy. This analysis underscores the therapeutic potential of current lab‐made hepatocytes, but also highlights deficiencies and uncertainties that need to be addressed in future studies aimed at developing liver cell therapies with lab‐made hepatocytes. (H epatology 2016;64:287–294)

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hep.28569

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The repopulation efficiency of HLCs is around 2%, far lower than that of PHHs, which is around 70%.

    “The repopulation efficiency of HLCs, which is around 2%, is far lower than that of PHHs, which is around 70% (Ji et al., 2013; Rezvani et al., 2016; Sampaziotis et al., 2015”

    From In Vitro Expansion of Primary Human Hepatocytes with Efficient Liver Repopulation Capacity (2018) · cites this paper as Rezvani et al., 2016

    The ‘Therapeutic efficacy of current lab-made hepatocytes’ section says lab-made hepatocytes generally repopulate injured mouse livers less effectively than primary human hepatocytes. Its iMPC-Heps subsection reports 2% repopulation for one lab-made cell type, but the iPSC-Heps subsection reports up to 20%; the copy does not establish 2% as a general figure or give the claimed 70% figure for primary hepatocytes. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rezvani, M., Grimm, A. A., & Willenbring, H.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Willenbring, Holger
Venue
Hepatology
Published
2016-05-26
Volume
64
Issue
1
Pages
287-294
ISSN
  • 0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3350
OpenAlex
W2311496492
Cited by
54
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R21AA022158)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK026743, T32DK007762)
  • Liver Center, University of California, San Francisco (UH3 NS080691, P30 DK26743, R21 AA022158)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver physiology and pathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Pluripotent Stem Cells Research
Keywords
hepatocyte transplantation, primary human hepatocytes, treatment efficacy assessment, alternative cell sources, liver transplantation alternatives
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Hepatocytes, Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review