Evidence Hub

The Application of Magnetic Particles for Cell Targeting in Preclinical Animal Models: A Systematic Review

V. Turchin, Roman Ishchenko, S. Bespalova, M. Solopov, M. Kiselevskiy, Y. Legenkiy, A. Popandopulo

Medical Journal of The Islamic Republic of Iran, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Background Magnetic cell targeting holds significant promise for advancing cell therapy. This study reviewed recent experimental research on the use of magnetic particles for targeting mammalian cells in animal models, focusing on trends and therapeutic outcomes over the past five years. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and eLibrary (2019–September 2024) was conducted using keywords: “magnetic cell targeting,” “magnetic cell delivery,” “magnetic cell localisation,” and “magnetic cell guidance,” excluding “drug.” Inclusion criteria: original animal studies using mammalian cells labeled with magnetic nano- or microparticles and targeted via magnetic fields. Exclusion criteria included reviews, subcellular structures targeting, hyperthermia, tissue engineering, and in vitro-only studies. Results Of 10,908 studies, 39 met the criteria. Research focused on the nervous system (39%), cancer (10%), eye (10%), urinary tract (10%), heart (8%), and musculoskeletal diseases (8%). Targeted cells included mesenchymal stromal cells (59%), immune cells (15%), endothelial cells (13%), and others. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (37 studies) or microparticles (2 studies) were used, with sizes of 10–170 nm (95%) or 1–2.8 μm. Common coatings included poly-L-lysine, dextran, polydopamine, and silica. Labeling concentrations ranged from 20–100 μg Fe/ml (81%), with 4–24 hours incubation. Permanent magnets (95%, primarily neodymium) with 0.005–1.45 T induction…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free