ReviewFrontiers in bioscience (Landmark edition)2010
Genetic modification of ex-vivo expanded stem cells for clinical application.
Review in Frontiers in bioscience (Landmark edition), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The quest for the holy grail: overcoming challenges in expanding human hematopoietic stem cells for clinical use.Stem cell investigation · 2023Review
- Non-viral Gene Delivery Methods for Bone and Joints.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Ex-vivo expansion of nonhuman primate CD34Stem cell research & therapy · 2016Article
- Neovascularization and hematopoietic stem cells.Cell biochemistry and biophysics · 2013Review
- Article
- Transplantation of hypoxia preconditioned bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells enhances angiogenesis and neurogenesis after cerebral ischemia in rats.Neurobiology of disease · 2012Article
- Expansion of hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation: current perspectives.Experimental hematology & oncology · 2012Article
- Hematopoietic stem cells: transcriptional regulation, ex vivo expansion and clinical application.Current molecular medicine · 2012Review
- Safety and efficacy of bone marrow-derived autologous CD133+ stem cell therapy.Frontiers in bioscience (Elite edition) · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Stem cell therapy is currently considered as an important regime for repairing, replacing or enhancing the biological functions of the damaged tissues. Among adult stem cells, hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) are commonly used for cure of hematological disorders. However, the number of HSCs obtained from sources like bone marrow, peripheral or umbilical cord blood is not sufficient for routine clinical application. Thus, ex-vivo expansion of HSCs becomes critically important. Ex-vivo culture and expansion of stem cells are challenging, as stem cells differentiate in culture rather than self-renew. Lack of clarity about the factors responsible for quiescence and differentiation of HSCs, investigators struggled to optimize conditions for ex vivo expansion. As we understand better, various strategies can be incorporated to mimic in vivo conditions for successful expansion of stem cells. However, characterization and biological functionality should also be tested for expanded stem cells prior to clinical application. To treat ischemia by enhancing therapeutic angiogenesis and neo-vascularization, the role of genetic modification of HSCs with pro-angiogenic factors is the focus of this review.
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.