Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24756774›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of comparative neurology2014

Prospects for engineering neurons from local neocortical cell populations as cell-mediated therapy for neurological disorders.

Stanley Bazarek, Daniel A Peterson

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of comparative neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stanley BazarekCenter for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Neuroscience, The Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, 60064.
Daniel A Peterson
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science · US

Funding

Stem Cells for Brain RepairR01AG020047 · NIA · ROSALIND FRANKLIN UNIV OF MEDICINE &SCI · PI PETERSON, DANIEL ALAN · 2001 to 2013
$2.5M
NIA NIH HHS AG20047NIA NIH HHS R01 AG020047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is little cell replacement following neurological injury, limiting the regenerative response of the CNS. Progress in understanding the biology of neural stem cells has raised interest in using stem cells for replacing neurons lost to injury or to disease. Stem cell therapy may also have a role in rebuilding deficient neural circuitry underlying mood disorders, epilepsy, and pain modulation among other roles. In vitro expansion of stem cells with directed differentiation prior to transplantation is one approach to stem cell therapy. Emerging evidence suggests that it may be possible to convert in vivo endogenous neural cells to a neuronal fate directly, providing an alternative strategy for stem cell therapy to the CNS. This review assesses the evidence for engineering a subtype-specific neuronal fate of endogenous neural cells in the cerebral cortex as a function of initial cell lineage, reactive response to injury, conversion factors, and environmental context. We conclude with a discussion of some of the challenges that must be overcome to move this alternative in vivo engineered conversion process toward becoming a viable therapeutic option.

Indexed as

Cell EngineeringAnimalsCell DifferentiationHumansNeocortexNervous System DiseasesNeural Stem CellsStem Cell Transplantationdirect in vivo conversionendogenous recruitmentinjury-induced neurogenesisneural stem cellneuronal replacementreprogramming

Identifiers

PMID24756774
PMCPMC4729289
OpenAlexW1916997263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.