Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20957094›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2010

Stem cells and neuroprotection: understanding the players.

Virginia Pearce

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Virginia PearceDepartment of Molecular Biology and Immunology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76011, USA; E-Mail: virginia.pearce@unthsc.edu ; Tel.: +1-817-735-0617;
University of North Texas Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of neuroprotective therapies begs the question of how such therapies could affect preexisting stem cell populations within the host, as well as those introduced through cell-replacement therapy. Multiple mechanisms may mediate stem cell responses to neuroprotectants such as host/donor age and gender, cellular lineage/differentiation status, and mitochondrial dynamics. Current therapeutic sources for stem cells are embryonic, somatic, or induced pluripotent, with very little known about the effects of gender, age, cell type, and mitochondrial dynamics. With the advent of therapies to stimulate and recruit endogenous stem cells or transplant donor cells into damage areas in the hopes of recuperative regeneration of lost neurons, it is important to discuss mechanisms that dictate the winning players in the neuroprotection game. This review will focus on our current understanding of the characteristics of renewing stem cells that may affect neuroprotection.

Indexed as

AnimalsFemaleHumansMaleMitochondrial DynamicsNeural Stem CellsNeurodegenerative DiseasesNeurogenesisSex FactorsStem Cell TransplantationTelomere Homeostasisgender specificmitochondrianeuroprotectionrenewalstem cellstelomerase

Identifiers

PMID20957094
PMCPMC2956095
OpenAlexW2010014310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.