ReviewHuman gene therapy2013
New frontier in regenerative medicine: site-specific gene correction in patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cells.
Review in Human gene therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insights of CRISPR-Cas systems in stem cells: progress in regenerative medicine.Molecular biology reports · 2022Review
- Highly efficient genome editing for single-base substitutions using optimized ssODNs with Cas9-RNPs.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Precision Medicine: Changing the way we think about healthcare.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2018Review
- Stem Cell Therapies for Treatment of Liver Disease.Biomedicines · 2016Review
- Generation of a High Number of Healthy Erythroid Cells from Gene-Edited Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency Patient-Specific Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.Stem cell reports · 2015Article
- Stem cell-based regenerative opportunities for the liver: State of the art and beyond.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- Rescue of DNA-PK Signaling and T-Cell Differentiation by Targeted Genome Editing in a prkdc Deficient iPSC Disease Model.PLoS genetics · 2015Article
- Targeted correction and restored function of the CFTR gene in cystic fibrosis induced pluripotent stem cells.Stem cell reports · 2015Article
- Disease modeling and lentiviral gene transfer in patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cells from late-onset Pompe disease patient.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2015Article
- Article
- Potential and Challenges of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells in Liver Diseases Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2014Review
- National Institutes of Health Center for Regenerative Medicine: putting science into practice.Stem cells and development · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in cell and gene therapy are opening up new avenues for regenerative medicine. Because of their acquired pluripotency, human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) are a promising source of autologous cells for regenerative medicine. They show unlimited self-renewal while retaining the ability, in principle, to differentiate into any cell type of the human body. Since Yamanaka and colleagues first reported the generation of hiPSCs in 2007, significant efforts have been made to understand the reprogramming process and to generate hiPSCs with potential for clinical use. On the other hand, the development of gene-editing platforms to increase homologous recombination efficiency, namely DNA nucleases (zinc finger nucleases, TAL effector nucleases, and meganucleases), is making the application of locus-specific gene therapy in human cells an achievable goal. The generation of patient-specific hiPSC, together with gene correction by homologous recombination, will potentially allow for their clinical application in the near future. In fact, reports have shown targeted gene correction through DNA-Nucleases in patient-specific hiPSCs. Various technologies have been described to reprogram patient cells and to correct these patient hiPSCs. However, no approach has been clearly more efficient and safer than the others. In addition, there are still significant challenges for the clinical application of these technologies, such as inefficient differentiation protocols, genetic instability resulting from the reprogramming process and hiPSC culture itself, the efficacy and specificity of the engineered DNA nucleases, and the overall homologous recombination efficiency. To summarize advances in the generation of gene corrected patient-specific hiPSCs, this review focuses on the available technological platforms, including their strengths and limitations regarding future therapeutic use of gene-corrected hiPSCs.
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.