ArticleProtein & cell2011
Quantitative proteomics analysis of parthenogenetically induced pluripotent stem cells.
Article in Protein & cell, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Parthenogenetic embryonic stem (pES) cells isolated from parthenogenetic activation of oocytes and embryos, also called parthenogenetically induced pluripotent stem cells, exhibit pluripotency evidenced by both in vitro and in vivo differentiation potential. Differential proteomic analysis was performed using differential in-gel electrophoresis and isotope-coded affinity tag-based quantitative proteomics to investigate the molecular mechanisms underlying the developmental pluripotency of pES cells and to compare the protein expression of pES cells generated from either the in vivo-matured ovulated (IVO) oocytes or from the in vitro-matured (IVM) oocytes with that of fertilized embryonic stem (fES) cells derived from fertilized embryos. A total of 76 proteins were upregulated and 16 proteins were downregulated in the IVM pES cells, whereas 91 proteins were upregulated and 9 were downregulated in the IVO pES cells based on a minimal 1.5-fold change as the cutoff value. No distinct pathways were found in the differentially expressed proteins except for those involved in metabolism and physiological processes. Notably, no differences were found in the protein expression of imprinted genes between the pES and fES cells, suggesting that genomic imprinting can be corrected in the pES cells at least at the early passages. The germline competent IVM pES cells may be applicable for germ cell renewal in aging ovaries if oocytes are retrieved at a younger age.
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.