Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18548354›Full record

ReviewStem cell reviews2008

Parthenogenesis as an approach to pluripotency: advantages and limitations involved.

Tiziana A L Brevini, Georgia Pennarossa, Stefania Antonini, Fulvio Gandolfi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cell reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Current Advances in 3D Tissue and Organ Reconstruction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Efficient SNP editing in haploid human pluripotent stem cells.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tiziana A L BreviniLaboratory of Biomedical Embryology, Center for Stem Cell Research, University of Milan, 20133, Milan, Italy. tiziana.brevini@unimi.it
Georgia Pennarossa
Stefania Antonini
Fulvio Gandolfi
University of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are invaluable cells derived from the inner cell mass of the mammalian blastocyst. They have nearly indefinite self-renewal, retain their developmental potential after prolonged periods in culture and display great plasticity that allow them to differentiate into all cell types of the body. They provide exciting opportunities to develop unique models for developmental research and hold great potential for cell and tissue replacement therapy. However, these unique cells cannot be obtained without destroying an embryo and, despite the potential therapeutic usefulness, their derivation in the human raises substantial ethical as well as legal and political concerns because it unavoidably involves the destruction of viable embryos. In the recent years a number of scientific proposals that do not require the generation and subsequent destruction of human embryos have been put forward in an attempt to fill the gap between ethical questions and potential scientific and medical benefits. In this review we briefly summarize data obtained from the literature related to these different alternative approaches and focus in more details on our experience in the derivation of parthenothes, as a possible alternative source for pluripotent cells, discussing the advantages as well as the limits of these cell lines.

Indexed as

Cell LineEmbryonic Stem CellsFemaleHumansModels, BiologicalOocytesParthenogenesisPluripotent Stem Cells

Identifiers

PMID18548354
OpenAlexW2046477616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.