ReviewStem cell reviews2007
Stem cell chronicles: autobiographies within genomes.
Review in Stem cell reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new timepiece: an epigenetic mitotic clock.Genome biology · 2016Article
- Article
- Decoding cell lineage from acquired mutations using arbitrary deep sequencing.Nature methods · 2011Article
- Inferring human stem cell behaviour from epigenetic drift.The Journal of pathology · 2009Review
- Amplification of multiple genomic loci from single cells isolated by laser micro-dissection of tissues.BMC biotechnology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human stem cell studies are difficult because many of the powerful experimental approaches that mark and follow stem cells and their progeny are impractical. Moreover, humans are long-lived, and it would literally take a lifetime to follow stem cell fates prospectively. Considering these hurdles, an ideal method would not require prior experimental manipulations but still allow "observations" of human stem cells from birth to death. The purpose of this review is to outline how histories or fates are likely to be surreptitiously recorded within somatic cell genomes by replication errors (molecular clock hypothesis). It may be possible to reconstruct stem cell lifetimes by measuring the random somatic changes that accumulate within their genomes, or the genomes of their more-easy-to-identify progeny.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.