ReviewCurrent opinion in hematology2012
Induced pluripotent stem cells in clinical hematology: potentials, progress, and remaining obstacles.
Review in Current opinion in hematology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Molecular Modulation of Fetal Liver Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization into Fetal Bone Marrow in Mice.Stem cells international · 2020Review
- Article
- Advances in cellular technology in the hematology field: What have we learned so far?World journal of stem cells · 2015Review
- The potential for immunogenicity of autologous induced pluripotent stem cell-derived therapies.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2014Review
- Human induced pluripotent stem cells from basic research to potential clinical applications in cancer.BioMed research international · 2013Review
- The role of induced pluripotent stem cells in research and therapy of primary immunodeficiencies.Current opinion in immunology · 2012Review
- Stem cell research and clinical development in tendon repair.Muscles, ligaments and tendons journal · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewWith the advent of reprogramming came the possibility of generating patient-specific clinical therapies. The purpose of this review is to discuss the recent key developments and remaining limitations in the stem cell and hematopoietic fields toward the goal of translating induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technologies into the hematology clinic. RECENT
findingsRecent progress in the hematopoietic and reprogramming fields has included identification of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) capable of long-term engraftment at the single-cell level, improvements in ex-vivo expansion of HSCs, transdifferentiation of somatic cells into hematopoietic progenitors, and the 'correction' of several disease-specific iPSCs using various gene-targeting strategies. SUMMARY: In light of recent advances, it is the hope that the hurdle of obtaining fully functional HSCs in a laboratory setting will be overcome through either in-vitro differentiation of pluripotent stem cells, ex-vivo expansion of HSCs obtained in vivo, or transdifferentiation from other somatic sources. Equally important will be for the reprogramming field to better understand the causes and consequences of the recently reported genetic/epigenetic variations present in iPSCs, especially within the context of gene-targeted strategies for correcting disease. The progress in the reprogramming and hematopoietic fields provides a strong foundation for future work toward the possible treatment of numerous hematological disorders using iPSC technologies.
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.