Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21603148›Full record

ArticleStem cells international2011

"Humanized" stem cell culture techniques: the animal serum controversy.

Chandana Tekkatte, Gency Ponrose Gunasingh, K M Cherian, Kavitha Sankaranarayanan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cells international, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cord Blood Platelet-Rich Plasma in Cesarean Section Wound Management.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Chandana TekkatteFrontier Lifeline Pvt. Ltd., TICEL Biopark, Taramani, Chennai 600113, India.
Gency Ponrose Gunasingh
K M Cherian
Kavitha Sankaranarayanan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cellular therapy is reaching a pinnacle with an understanding of the potential of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) to regenerate damaged tissue in the body. The limited numbers of these hMSCs in currently identified sources, like bone marrow, adipose tissue, and so forth, bring forth the need for their in vitro culture/expansion. However, the extensive usage of supplements containing xenogeneic components in the expansion-media might pose a risk to the post-transplantation safety of patients. This warrants the necessity to identify and develop chemically defined or "humanized" supplements which would make in vitro cultured/processed cells relatively safer for transplantation in regenerative medicine. In this paper, we outline the various caveats associated with conventionally used supplements of xenogenic origin and also portray the possible alternatives/additives which could one day herald the dawn of a new era in the translation of in vitro cultured cells to therapeutic interventions.

Identifiers

PMID21603148
PMCPMC3096451

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.