ReviewMolecular neurobiology2016
An Overview on Human Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cell-Based Alternative In Vitro Models for Developmental Neurotoxicity Assessment.
Review in Molecular neurobiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D human stem-cell-derived neuronal spheroids forCurrent research in toxicology · 2024Article
- Developmental Neurotoxicity Screening for Nanoparticles Using Neuron-Like Cells of Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Example with Magnetite Nanoparticles.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Neuron-Like Cells Generated from Human Umbilical Cord Lining-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells as a New In Vitro Model for Neuronal Toxicity Screening: Using Magnetite Nanoparticles as an Example.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Aberrant 5'-CpG Methylation of Cord Blood TNFα Associated with Maternal Exposure to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers.PloS one · 2015Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The developing brain is found highly vulnerable towards the exposure of different environmental chemicals/drugs, even at concentrations, those are generally considered safe in mature brain. The brain development is a very complex phenomenon which involves several processes running in parallel such as cell proliferation, migration, differentiation, maturation and synaptogenesis. If any step of these cellular processes hampered due to exposure of any xenobiotic/drug, there is almost no chance of recovery which could finally result in a life-long disability. Therefore, the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) assessment of newly discovered drugs/molecules is a very serious concern among the neurologists. Animal-based DNT models have their own limitations such as ethical concerns and lower sensitivity with less predictive values in humans. Furthermore, non-availability of human foetal brain tissues/cells makes job more difficult to understand about mechanisms involve in DNT in human beings. Although, the use of cell culture have been proven as a powerful tool for DNT assessment, but many in vitro models are currently utilizing genetically unstable cell lines. The interpretation of data generated using such terminally differentiated cells is hard to extrapolate with in vivo situations. However, human umbilical cord blood stem cells (hUCBSCs) have been proposed as an excellent tool for alternative DNT testing because neuronal development from undifferentiated state could exactly mimic the original pattern of neuronal development in foetus when hUCBSCs differentiated into neuronal cells. Additionally, less ethical concern, easy availability and high plasticity make them an attractive source for establishing in vitro model of DNT assessment. In this review, we are focusing towards recent advancements on hUCBSCs-based in vitro model to understand DNTs.
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.