ArticleCellular reprogramming2012
Comparative analysis of nuclear transfer embryo-derived mouse embryonic stem cells. Part I: cellular characterization.
Article in Cellular reprogramming, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Allele-specific RNA-seq expression profiling of imprinted genes in mouse isogenic pluripotent states.Epigenetics & chromatin · 2019Article
- Primordial germ cell differentiation of nuclear transfer embryonic stem cells using surface modified electroconductive scaffolds.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2017Article
- Slow turning lateral vessel bioreactor improves embryoid body formation and cardiogenic differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells.Cellular reprogramming · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Embryonic stem cells derived from nuclear transfer embryos (ntESCs) are particularly valuable for regenerative medicine, as they are a patient-specific and histocompatible cell source for the treatment of varying diseases. However, currently, little is known about their cellular and molecular profile. In the present study, in a mouse model different donor cell-derived ntESCs from various genetic backgrounds were compared with reference ESCs and analyzed comprehensively at the cellular level. A number of pluripotency marker genes were compared by flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry analysis. Significant differences at the protein level were observed for POU5F1, SOX2, FGF4, NANOG, and SSEA-1. However, such differences had no effect on in vitro cell differentiation and cell fate: derivatives of the three germ layers were detected in all ntESC lines. The neural and cardiac in vitro differentiation revealed minor differences between the cell lines, both at the mRNA and protein level. Karyotype analyses and cell growth studies did not reveal any significant variations. Despite some differences observed, the present study revealed that ntESC lines had similar differentiation competences compared to other ESCs. The results indicate that the observed differences may be related to the genotype rather than to the nuclear transfer technology.
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.