Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21997635›Full record

ReviewNature biotechnology2011

Direct lineage conversions: unnatural but useful?

Thomas Vierbuchen, Marius Wernig

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature biotechnology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 134 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
134citing papers in PubMed
–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

134 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Cell identity and 5-hydroxymethylcytosine.Epigenetics & chromatin · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Cell-PermeableInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  20. Article

74 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

2 authors.

Thomas VierbuchenDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Marius Wernig

Funding

Induced neuronal cells: A novel tool to study neuropsychiatric diseasesR01MH092931 · NIMH · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Thomas C. Sudhof, Marius Wernig · 2010 to 2026
$9.7M
Dissecting the mechanism of direct neural induction through genomic interrogationRC4NS073015 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHANG, HOWARD Y, QUAKE, STEPHEN R · 2010 to 2010
$2.9M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH092931NINDS NIH HHS RC4 NS073015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classic experiments such as somatic cell nuclear transfer into oocytes and cell fusion demonstrated that differentiated cells are not irreversibly committed to their fate. More recent work has built on these conclusions and discovered defined factors that directly induce one specific cell type from another, which may be as distantly related as cells from different germ layers. This suggests the possibility that any specific cell type may be directly converted into any other if the appropriate reprogramming factors are known. Direct lineage conversion could provide important new sources of human cells for modeling disease processes or for cellular-replacement therapies. For future applications, it will be critical to carefully determine the fidelity of reprogramming and to develop methods for robustly and efficiently generating human cell types of interest.

Indexed as

Cell LineageAnimalsBiomedical ResearchCellular ReprogrammingEndodermEpigenesis, GeneticHumansOrgan Specificity

Identifiers

PMID21997635
PMCPMC3222779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.