Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23535166›Full record

ReviewThe Biochemical journal2013

The cell cycle and pluripotency.

Christopher Hindley, Anna Philpott

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Biochemical journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Efficient Quantification of Extrinsic Fluctuations via Stochastic Simulations.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Cell Cycle Regulation of Stem Cells by MicroRNAs.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2018
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Cycling to Meet Fate: Connecting Pluripotency to the Cell Cycle.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2018
    Review
  20. Article
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.

Christopher HindleyEmmy Noether-Group for Stem Cell Biology, Department of Molecular Embryology, Institute of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, D-79104, Germany.
Anna Philpott

Funding

Cancer Research UKMedical Research Council G0700758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PSCs (pluripotent stem cells) possess two key properties that have made them the focus of global research efforts in regenerative medicine: they have unlimited expansion potential under conditions which favour their preservation as PSCs and they have the ability to generate all somatic cell types upon differentiation (pluripotency). Conditions have been defined in vitro in which pluripotency is maintained, or else differentiation is favoured and is directed towards specific somatic cell types. However, an unanswered question is whether or not the core cell cycle machinery directly regulates the pluripotency and differentiation properties of PSCs. If so, then manipulation of the cell cycle may represent an additional tool by which in vitro maintenance or differentiation of PSCs may be controlled in regenerative medicine. The present review aims to summarize our current understanding of links between the core cell cycle machinery and the maintenance of pluripotency in ESCs (embryonic stem cells) and iPSCs (induced PSCs).

Indexed as

Cell CycleAnimalsCell DifferentiationEmbryonic Stem CellsGenes, mycHumansMicePluripotent Stem Cells

Identifiers

PMID23535166
PMCPMC3631102

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.