Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25815115›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of stem cells2015

Evaluating alternative stem cell hypotheses for adult corneal epithelial maintenance.

John D West, Natalie J Dorà, J Martin Collinson

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of stem cells, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. eLife · 2025
    Article
  4. Recent Advances in Stem Cells of Corneal Epithelia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025
    Review
  5. Frontiers in medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Eyes open on stem cells.Stem cell reports · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John D WestJohn D West, Natalie J Dorà, Genes and Development Group, Centre for Integrative Physiology, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, EH8 9XD Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Natalie J DoràJohn D West, Natalie J Dorà, Genes and Development Group, Centre for Integrative Physiology, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, EH8 9XD Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
J Martin CollinsonJohn D West, Natalie J Dorà, Genes and Development Group, Centre for Integrative Physiology, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, EH8 9XD Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review we evaluate evidence for three different hypotheses that explain how the corneal epithelium is maintained. The limbal epithelial stem cell (LESC) hypothesis is most widely accepted. This proposes that stem cells in the basal layer of the limbal epithelium, at the periphery of the cornea, maintain themselves and also produce transient (or transit) amplifying cells (TACs). TACs then move centripetally to the centre of the cornea in the basal layer of the corneal epithelium and also replenish cells in the overlying suprabasal layers. The LESCs maintain the corneal epithelium during normal homeostasis and become more active to repair significant wounds. Second, the corneal epithelial stem cell (CESC) hypothesis postulates that, during normal homeostasis, stem cells distributed throughout the basal corneal epithelium, maintain the tissue. According to this hypothesis, LESCs are present in the limbus but are only active during wound healing. We also consider a third possibility, that the corneal epithelium is maintained during normal homeostasis by proliferation of basal corneal epithelial cells without any input from stem cells. After reviewing the published evidence, we conclude that the LESC and CESC hypotheses are consistent with more of the evidence than the third hypothesis, so we do not consider this further. The LESC and CESC hypotheses each have difficulty accounting for one main type of evidence so we evaluate the two key lines of evidence that discriminate between them. Finally, we discuss how lineage-tracing experiments have begun to resolve the debate in favour of the LESC hypothesis. Nevertheless, it also seems likely that some basal corneal epithelial cells can act as long-term progenitors if limbal stem cell function is compromised. Thus, this aspect of the CESC hypothesis may have a lasting impact on our understanding of corneal epithelial maintenance, even if it is eventually shown that stem cells are restricted to the limbus as proposed by the LESC hypothesis.

Indexed as

CorneaCorneal epitheliumEyeLimbal epitheliumLineage tracingStem cell

Identifiers

PMID25815115
PMCPMC4369487
OpenAlexW2111821088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.