Cargando…

Human Ischaemic Cascade Studies Using SH-SY5Y Cells: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Low translational yield for stroke may reflect the focus of discovery science on rodents rather than humans. Just how little is known about human neuronal ischaemic responses is confirmed by systematic review and meta-analysis revealing that data for the most commonly used SH-SY5Y human cells compri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Ye, Eaton, Emma D., Wills, Taryn E., McCann, Sarah K., Antonic, Ana, Howells, David W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6208743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29572690
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12975-018-0620-4
_version_ 1783366766371536896
author Liu, Ye
Eaton, Emma D.
Wills, Taryn E.
McCann, Sarah K.
Antonic, Ana
Howells, David W.
author_facet Liu, Ye
Eaton, Emma D.
Wills, Taryn E.
McCann, Sarah K.
Antonic, Ana
Howells, David W.
author_sort Liu, Ye
collection PubMed
description Low translational yield for stroke may reflect the focus of discovery science on rodents rather than humans. Just how little is known about human neuronal ischaemic responses is confirmed by systematic review and meta-analysis revealing that data for the most commonly used SH-SY5Y human cells comprises only 84 papers. Oxygen-glucose deprivation, H(2)O(2), hypoxia, glucose-deprivation and glutamate excitotoxicity yielded − 58, − 61, − 29, − 45 and − 49% injury, respectively, with a dose-response relationship found only for H(2)O(2) injury (R(2) = 29.29%, p < 0.002). Heterogeneity (I(2) = 99.36%, df = 132, p < 0.0001) was largely attributable to the methods used to detect injury (R(2) = 44.77%, p < 0.000) with cell death assays detecting greater injury than survival assays (− 71 vs − 47%, R(2) = 28.64%, p < 0.000). Seventy-four percent of publications provided no description of differentiation status, but in the 26% that did, undifferentiated cells were susceptible to greater injury (R(2) = 4.13%, p < 0.047). One hundred and sixty-nine interventions improved average survival by 34.67% (p < 0.0001). Eighty-eight comparisons using oxygen-glucose deprivation found both benefit and harm, but studies using glutamate and H(2)O(2) injury reported only improvement. In studies using glucose deprivation, intervention generally worsened outcome. There was insufficient data to rank individual interventions, but of the studies reporting greatest improvement (> 90% effect size), 7/13 were of herbal medicine constituents (24.85% of the intervention dataset). We conclude that surprisingly little is known of the human neuronal response to ischaemic injury, and that the large impact of methodology on outcome indicates that further model validation is required. Lack of evidence for randomisation, blinding or power analysis suggests that the intervention data is at substantial risk of bias. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12975-018-0620-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6208743
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62087432018-11-09 Human Ischaemic Cascade Studies Using SH-SY5Y Cells: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Liu, Ye Eaton, Emma D. Wills, Taryn E. McCann, Sarah K. Antonic, Ana Howells, David W. Transl Stroke Res Original Article Low translational yield for stroke may reflect the focus of discovery science on rodents rather than humans. Just how little is known about human neuronal ischaemic responses is confirmed by systematic review and meta-analysis revealing that data for the most commonly used SH-SY5Y human cells comprises only 84 papers. Oxygen-glucose deprivation, H(2)O(2), hypoxia, glucose-deprivation and glutamate excitotoxicity yielded − 58, − 61, − 29, − 45 and − 49% injury, respectively, with a dose-response relationship found only for H(2)O(2) injury (R(2) = 29.29%, p < 0.002). Heterogeneity (I(2) = 99.36%, df = 132, p < 0.0001) was largely attributable to the methods used to detect injury (R(2) = 44.77%, p < 0.000) with cell death assays detecting greater injury than survival assays (− 71 vs − 47%, R(2) = 28.64%, p < 0.000). Seventy-four percent of publications provided no description of differentiation status, but in the 26% that did, undifferentiated cells were susceptible to greater injury (R(2) = 4.13%, p < 0.047). One hundred and sixty-nine interventions improved average survival by 34.67% (p < 0.0001). Eighty-eight comparisons using oxygen-glucose deprivation found both benefit and harm, but studies using glutamate and H(2)O(2) injury reported only improvement. In studies using glucose deprivation, intervention generally worsened outcome. There was insufficient data to rank individual interventions, but of the studies reporting greatest improvement (> 90% effect size), 7/13 were of herbal medicine constituents (24.85% of the intervention dataset). We conclude that surprisingly little is known of the human neuronal response to ischaemic injury, and that the large impact of methodology on outcome indicates that further model validation is required. Lack of evidence for randomisation, blinding or power analysis suggests that the intervention data is at substantial risk of bias. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12975-018-0620-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2018-03-23 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6208743/ /pubmed/29572690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12975-018-0620-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Liu, Ye
Eaton, Emma D.
Wills, Taryn E.
McCann, Sarah K.
Antonic, Ana
Howells, David W.
Human Ischaemic Cascade Studies Using SH-SY5Y Cells: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Human Ischaemic Cascade Studies Using SH-SY5Y Cells: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Human Ischaemic Cascade Studies Using SH-SY5Y Cells: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Human Ischaemic Cascade Studies Using SH-SY5Y Cells: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Human Ischaemic Cascade Studies Using SH-SY5Y Cells: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Human Ischaemic Cascade Studies Using SH-SY5Y Cells: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort human ischaemic cascade studies using sh-sy5y cells: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6208743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29572690
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12975-018-0620-4
work_keys_str_mv AT liuye humanischaemiccascadestudiesusingshsy5ycellsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT eatonemmad humanischaemiccascadestudiesusingshsy5ycellsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT willstaryne humanischaemiccascadestudiesusingshsy5ycellsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mccannsarahk humanischaemiccascadestudiesusingshsy5ycellsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT antonicana humanischaemiccascadestudiesusingshsy5ycellsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT howellsdavidw humanischaemiccascadestudiesusingshsy5ycellsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis