ArticleInternational journal of stem cells2013
Investigating cell surface markers on normal hematopoietic stem cells in three different niche conditions.
Article in International journal of stem cells, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- TIGIT axis: novel immune checkpoints in anti-leukemia immunity.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Review
- Cancer Stem Cells are Actually Stem Cells with Disordered Differentiation: the Monophyletic Origin of Cancer.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2023Review
- Article
- Spelling Out CICs: A Multi-Organ Examination of the Contributions of Cancer Initiating Cells' Role in Tumor Progression.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2022Review
- Poliovirus receptor (PVR)-like protein cosignaling network: new opportunities for cancer immunotherapy.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2021Review
- Review
- Cancer stem cell surface markers on normal stem cells.BMB reports · 2017Review
- The role of purinergic receptors in stem cell differentiation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hematopoietic stem cells are of therapeutic interest to the clinicians and researchers due to their promising assistance in management of malignant and inherited hematological conditions. Evaluation of cell surface markers using multiparametric flow cytometry is a well adapted qualitative measure of cells in question for many years. An artillery of these markers has been studied in hematological malignancies and related disorders. However, their role and differential expression on normal hematopoietic stem cells from clinically available sources is not always described carefully. In the present study, we attempted to evaluate expression of CD44, CD90, CD96 and CD123 in three clinically available sources of normal HSCs (Hematopoietic stem cells). Sources of HSCs in the present study involved umbilical cord blood (UCB), normal bone marrow (NBM) and bone marrow from idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) patients (IBM). CD44 is an important homing receptor while CD90 is involved in maintaining stem cell quiescent. CD96 is known to be leukemia specific marker and CD123 is involved in stem cell differentiation and survival. We observed a significant difference in expression CD44, CD90 and CD123 on normal HSCs derived from umbilical cord and ITP marrow. CD96 was highly expressed on HSCs obtained from ITP marrow. Investigating expression of these markers on normal HSCs in different niches will be helpful in correlating their function with niche condition and delineating their 'abnormal' expression from the normal.
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.