Purpose of ReviewThis review highlights problems related to translation of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) from bench to bedsite. Regenerative medicine within the current regulatory frame reveals common hitches in the course of development, translation, and clinical application. This paper suggests outlining a path from the few examples of successfully approved vs unsuccessful advanced therapies.Recent FindingsIn the multitude of ongoing studies, few of them achieved positive results with a final treatment available to patients; this result was possible due to multidisciplinary teams working together from the beginning of the development and during the hard route to standardization and clinical application.SummaryThe root of success of an advanced therapy requires not only the inescapable scientific and biological knowledge but also requires several contributions as regulatory, ethical, medical, and bio-engineering expertise, from the real beginning. A strong scientific rationale and an integrated network of expertises would contribute to a successful investment of available resources in advanced therapy medicinal products and to a greater confidence in future medicine.

This article explores examples of successful and unsuccessful regenerative medicine on human epithelia. To evaluate the applications of the first regenerated tissues, the analysis of the past successes and failures addresses some pending issues and lay the groundwork for developing new therapies. Research should still be encouraged to fill the gap between pathologies, clinical applications and what regenerative medicine can attain with current knowledge.

Total bilateral Limbal Stem Cells Deficiency is a pathologic condition of the ocular surface due to loss or impairment of corneal stem cell function, altering homeostasis of the corneal epithelium. Cultivated Oral Mucosa Epithelial Transplantation (COMET) is the only autologous treatment for this pathology. During the follow-up, a proper characterization of the transplanted oral mucosa on the ocular surface supports understanding the regenerative process. The previously proposed markers for oral mucosa identification (e.g., keratins 3 and 13) are co-expressed by corneal and conjunctival epithelia. Here, we propose a new specific marker to distinguish human oral mucosa from the epithelia of the ocular surface. We compared the transcriptome of holoclones (stem cells) from the human oral mucosa, limbal and conjunctival cultures by microarray assay. High expression of SOX2 identified the oral mucosa vs. cornea and conjunctiva, while PAX6 was highly expressed in corneal and conjunctival epithelia. The transcripts were validated by qPCR, and immunological methods identified the related proteins. Finally, the proposed markers were used to analyze a 10-year follow-up aniridic patient treated by COMET. These findings will support the follow-up analysis of COMET treated patients and help to shed light on the mechanism of corneal repair and regeneration.