Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20972814›Full record

ArticleCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2011

Mesenchymal stem cells or cardiac progenitors for cardiac repair? A comparative study.

Remco Koninckx, Annick Daniëls, Severina Windmolders, Françoise Carlotti, Urbain Mees, Paul Steels, Jean-Luc Rummens, Marc Hendrikx, Karen Hensen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Endogenous cardiac stem cells for the treatment of heart failure.Stem cells and cloning : advances and applications · 2013
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Functional cardiac tissue engineering.Regenerative medicine · 2012
    Review
  20. 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

9 authors.

Remco KoninckxLaboratory of Experimental Hematology, Jessa Hospital, Campus Virga Jesse, Stadsomvaart 11, Hasselt, Belgium.
Annick Daniëls
Severina Windmolders
Françoise Carlotti
Urbain Mees
Paul Steels
Jean-Luc Rummens
Marc Hendrikx
Karen Hensen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past, clinical trials transplanting bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells reported a limited improvement in cardiac function. Therefore, the search for stem cells leading to more successful stem cell therapies continues. Good candidates are the so-called cardiac stem cells (CSCs). To date, there is no clear evidence to show if these cells are intrinsic stem cells from the heart or mobilized cells from bone marrow. In this study we performed a comparative study between human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs), purified c-kit(+) CSCs, and cardiosphere-derived cells (CDCs). Our results showed that hMSCs can be discriminated from CSCs by their differentiation capacity towards adipocytes and osteocytes and the expression of CD140b. On the other hand, cardiac progenitors display a greater cardiomyogenic differentiation capacity. Despite a different isolation protocol, no distinction could be made between c-kit(+) CSCs and CDCs, indicating that they probably derive from the same precursor or even are the same cells.

Indexed as

RegenerationCell DifferentiationCell LineageCells, CulturedCell SeparationHeartHumansMesenchymal Stem CellsMyoblasts, Cardiac

Identifiers

PMID20972814
PMCPMC11115043

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.