Is there more than one matched comparison of delivery classes, and any with replicates?

Answer

The searches recorded in this corpus did not find a second study that compares two different delivery classes with the factor cocktail and the handling both matched, as Simara et al. 2014 did. They did find one study with replicates and a statistical test for two delivery classes that share the same four factors: Hubscher et al. 2019 compared STEMCCA lentivirus with CytoTune Sendai virus in human skin fibroblasts and reported mean efficiencies of 1.30 +/- 0.4% (n=3) and 1.37 +/- 0.4% (n=9), both well above episomal plasmids at 0.04 +/- 0.01% 80c645a7. It does not close the question, because cell number, vessel and viral dose differed between its two viral arms 80c645a7. This is a statement about what limited searches found, not proof that no matched study exists.

Summary

Every near miss fails on a different axis: unmatched cocktail, unmatched handling, or no efficiency data. Replicates and statistics exist in Hubscher 2019 and in Goh 2013, but neither is matched on handling 80c645a7 4597946a. The best-matched design in the corpus (Simara 2014) is a short communication with single numbers per condition, as the task statement itself records.

Hubscher 2019 shows how pooled means can mislead: the pooled lentivirus and Sendai means are near equal, yet in the three donors reprogrammed with both viruses Sendai was higher every time (STEMCCA 1.042, 2.503, 0.348 % against Sendai 3.172, 2.916, 1.925 % in its Table 2) 80c645a7. The same paper prints different error values in its abstract (+/-0.18 and +/-0.01) and in its Results text (+/-0.4) for the two viral means 80c645a7.

Studies that pair episomal plasmids with Sendai point in opposite directions and are not matched: Vdovin 2015 reports ~200 versus 8 colonies per 10^5 cells on day 21, episomal higher, with the Sendai cocktail unstated 45608ece; Hubscher 2019 has Sendai far above episomal 80c645a7; Pozner 2025 has Sendai line-level success of 92.3% against 26.7% for episomal, with sh-p53 in the episomal vectors and a quality-control outcome, not colony efficiency 9d8c32af. These cannot be placed on one scale.

Evidence

• Hubscher et al. 2019 - human skin fibroblasts from adult donors aged 25-77; STEMCCA lentivirus (integrating, four factors in one cassette) versus CytoTune-iPS 2.0 Sendai; alkaline-phosphatase-positive colonies over cells used, up to day 25; 1.30 +/- 0.4% (n=3) and 1.37 +/- 0.4% (n=9); significance marked at P<=0.05 and P<=0.01. Not matched: STEMCCA 2x10^4 fibroblasts per 6-well well, Sendai 7.5x10^4 per 12-well; Sendai MOI 5/5/3 (KOS/c-myc/KLF4), none stated for STEMCCA; Sendai cells moved to Geltrex/E8 at day 7. 80c645a7
• Goh et al. 2013 - retrovirus, episomal plasmid and mRNA on the same BJ fibroblasts and three primary lines, replicates n=2 to 4 (mean +/- SE); abstract values mRNA 1.89%, retrovirus 0.2% and episomal 0.10% for BJ. Not matched: pMXs OSKM versus the Stemgent mRNA kit versus episomal sets containing Nanog, Lin28, shp53 or L-Myc; re-plating at day 4 for retrovirus and day 7 for episomal. 4597946a 45608ece
• Vdovin et al. 2015 - episomal oriP/EBNA-1 (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, L-Myc, Lin28) versus Sendai in adult skin fibroblasts, ~200 versus 8 colonies per 10^5 cells on day 21, Tra-1-60; single values, no replicates or statistics; full text blocked for another searcher. 45608ece 0a8608ab
• Nishino et al. 2018 - one donor's menstrual blood cells reprogrammed with retrovirus, Sendai and episomal vectors; the comparison is DNA methylation only (lines per vector: 3, 6, 3), with no mention of efficiency or colonies. 0a8608ab 8a99d2f1
• Pozner 2025 - Sendai versus OriP/EBNA1 episomal vectors expressing sh-p53; fibroblast line success 92.3% (n=39) against 26.7% (n=15), chi2=21.008, p<0.000004574; cocktail not matched. 9d8c32af
• DeBose 2026 - Sendai (KOS, c-Myc, KLF4 at MOI 4.5) versus mRNA-LNP (Oct4, SOX2, KLF4, c-Myc, LIN28) in one donor's blood cells; no colony counts, replicates or statistics; picking at days 16-20 for the mRNA arm. 4c7373da 9d8c32af
• Citation trace of Simara 2014 - 6 citing papers in Europe PMC as of 2026-09-20, four from the same group; the two most plausible concern source cell type and DNA double-strand breaks, not delivery class. 8517d5f2
• Search reports - 17 queries on 2026-09-18 across PubMed, OpenAlex, arXiv and bioRxiv, and an exact CytoTune AND STEMCCA co-mention check that returned 0 PubMed records; zero qualifying studies found. 45608ece 0a8608ab

Methodology

All eight verified facts are used. Hubscher 2019 is new relative to the previous version of this report and changes its answer from none to one partial match with replicates. I did not pool the near misses, because each departs from the matching condition on a different axis, and I did not treat Pozner's line-level success rate as a colony efficiency. The Simara 2014 colony counts are given in the task statement, not in a verified fact, so they are not restated or compared here. Noting that the episomal-versus-Sendai studies point in opposite directions is a reading across unmatched designs; they differ in cells, cocktails, units and outcomes and are not comparable.

Limitations

• Search coverage is uneven: several platform queries returned zero results 4c7373da, and Hasegawa 2010 and two other candidate papers could not be read 8a99d2f1 4597946a.
• Vdovin's Sendai cocktail and full text could not be checked 0a8608ab 45608ece.
• Hubscher's handling differs between arms and its error values differ between abstract and text 80c645a7.
• The corpus cannot show that no matched study exists.