ReviewStem cell reviews and reports2015
Current methods and challenges in the comprehensive characterization of human pluripotent stem cells.
Review in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality control strategy for differentiating induced pluripotent stem cells into pancreatic β-cells before transplantation.Regenerative medicine · 2026Review
- Menstrual blood-derived mesenchymal stromal cell extracellular vesicles - a potential tool for tissue regeneration and disease detection.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Review
- Homogeneous Differentiation of Functional Hepatocytes from Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Induced pluripotent stem cells from patients with focal cortical dysplasia and refractory epilepsy.Molecular medicine reports · 2017Article
- Detailed Characterization of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Manufactured for Therapeutic Applications.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) are powerful tools for basic scientific research and promising agents for drug discovery and regenerative medicine. Technological advances have made it increasingly easy to generate PSCs but the various lines generated may differ in their characteristics based on their origin, derivation, number of passages, and culture conditions. In order to confirm the pluripotency, quality, identity, and safety of pluripotent cell lines as they are derived and maintained, it is critical to perform a panel of characterization assays. Functional pluripotency is determined using tests that rely on the expression of specific markers in the undifferentiated and differentiated states; tests for quality, identity and safety are less specialized. This article provides a comprehensive review of current practices in PSC characterization and explores challenges in the field, from the selection of markers to the development of simple and scalable methods. It also delves into emerging trends like the adoption of alternative assays that could be used to supplement or replace traditional methods, specifically the use of in silico assays for determining pluripotency.
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.