ArticleSpringerPlus2014
Comparative analysis reveals similarities between cultured submandibular salivary gland cells and liver progenitor cells.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tissue-engineered edible bird's nests (TeeBN).International journal of bioprinting · 2023Article
- The Cellular and Molecular Landscape of Synchronous Pediatric Sialoblastoma and Hepatoblastoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- The effect of basic fibroblast growth factor on regeneration in a surgical wound model of rat submandibular glands.International journal of oral science · 2016Article
- Purification and ex vivo expansion of fully functional salivary gland stem cells.Stem cell reports · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mouse submandibular salivary gland cells and liver progenitor cells from long-term in vitro cultures with a high proliferation potential were side-by-side compared by methods of immunocytochemistry, quantitative real-time PCR, flow cytometry, and transcriptome analysis. The two cell types were found to be similar in expressing cell markers such as EpCAM, CD29, c-Kit, Sca-1, and c-Met. In addition, both cell types expressed cytokeratins 8, 18, and 19, alpha-fetoprotein, and (weakly) albumin. Unlike the liver cells, however, the salivary gland cells in culture showed high-level expression of cytokeratin 14 and CD49f, which was indicative of their origin from salivary gland ducts. Quantitative real-time PCR and deep-sequencing transcriptome analysis revealed similarities in the expression pattern of transcription factors between the two cell types. In this respect, however, the cultured salivary gland cells proved to be closer to exocrine cells of the pancreas than to the liver progenitor cells. Thus, ductal cells of postnatal submandibular salivary glands in culture show phenotypic convergence with progenitor cells of endodermal origin, suggesting that these glands may serve as a potential cell source for cellular therapy of hepatic and pancreatic disorders. The results of this study provide a deeper insight into the molecular features of salivary gland cells and may help optimize procedures for stimulating their differentiation in a specified direction.
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.