ArticlePloS one2009
Identification by automated screening of a small molecule that selectively eliminates neural stem cells derived from hESCs but not dopamine neurons.
Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of diagnostic biomarkers and immune cell infiltration in coronary artery disease by machine learning, nomogram, and molecular docking.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Mitomycin-C treatment during differentiation of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived dopamine neurons reduces proliferation without compromising survival or function in vivo.Stem cells translational medicine · 2021Article
- The antibiotic clofoctol suppresses glioma stem cell proliferation by activating KLF13.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2019Article
- The translational potential of human induced pluripotent stem cells for clinical neurology : The translational potential of hiPSCs in neurology.Cell biology and toxicology · 2017Review
- Preclinical Analysis of Fetal Human Mesencephalic Neural Progenitor Cell Lines: Characterization and Safety In Vitro and In Vivo.Stem cells translational medicine · 2017Article
- Comparative neurotoxicity screening in human iPSC-derived neural stem cells, neurons and astrocytes.Brain research · 2016Article
- A platform for rapid generation of single and multiplexed reporters in human iPSC lines.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Compounds with species and cell type specific toxicity identified in a 2000 compound drug screen of neural stem cells and rat mixed cortical neurons.Neurotoxicology · 2014Article
- Concise review: modeling central nervous system diseases using induced pluripotent stem cells.Stem cells translational medicine · 2014Review
- Stem cells and stem cell-derived tissues and their use in safety assessment.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2014Review
- Potential for pharmacological manipulation of human embryonic stem cells.British journal of pharmacology · 2013Review
- Adapting human pluripotent stem cells to high-throughput and high-content screening.Nature protocols · 2013Article
- Derivation and expansion using only small molecules of human neural progenitors for neurodegenerative disease modeling.PloS one · 2013Article
- In vitro uses of human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2012Review
- A reduction in ATP demand and mitochondrial activity with neural differentiation of human embryonic stem cells.Journal of cell science · 2011Article
- ATP-dependent pre-replicative complex assembly is facilitated by Adk1p in budding yeast.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe have previously described fundamental differences in the biology of stem cells as compared to other dividing cell populations. We reasoned therefore that a differential screen using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved compounds may identify either selective survival factors or specific toxins and may be useful for the therapeutically-driven manufacturing of cells in vitro and possibly in vivo. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsIn this study we report on optimized methods for feeder-free culture of hESCs and hESC-derived neural stem cells (NSCs) to facilitate automated screening. We show that we are able to measure ATP as an indicator of metabolic activity in an automated screening assay. With this optimized platform we screened a collection of FDA-approved drugs to identify compounds that have differential toxicity to hESCs and their neural derivatives. Nine compounds were identified to be specifically toxic for NSCs to a greater extent than for hESCs. Six of these initial hits were retested and verified by large-scale cell culture to determine dose-responsive NSC toxicity. One of the compounds retested, amiodarone HCL, was further tested for possible effects on postmitotic neurons, a likely target for transplant therapy. Amiodarone HCL was found to be selectively toxic to NSCs but not to differentiated neurons or glial cells. Treated and untreated NSCs and neurons were then interrogated with global gene expression analysis to explore the mechanisms of action of amiodarone HCl. The gene expression analysis suggests that activation of cell-type specific cationic channels may underlie the toxicity of the drug. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: In conclusion, we have developed a screening strategy that allows us to rapidly identify clinically approved drugs for use in a Chemistry, Manufacture and Control protocol that can be safely used to deplete unwanted contaminating precursor cells from a differentiated cell product. Our results also suggest that such a strategy is rich in the potential of identifying lineage specific reagents and provides additional evidence for the utility of stem cells in screening and discovery paradigms.
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.