Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26282627›Full record

ReviewStem cell research & therapy2015

Where is the common ground between bone marrow mesenchymal stem/stromal cells from different donors and species?

Elena Jones, Richard Schäfer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cell research & therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Identifying Biomarkers for Osteogenic Potency Assay Development.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Enhanced Suppression of Immune Cells In Vitro by MSC Overexpressing FasL.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Elena JonesLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Leeds University, Room 5.24 Clinical Sciences Building, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. msjej@leeds.ac.uk.
Richard SchäferInstitute for Transfusion Medicine and Immunohaematology, German Red Cross Blood Donor Service, Baden-Württemberg-Hessen gGmbH, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe University Hospital, Sandhofstrasse 1, D-60528, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. r.schaefer@blutspende.de.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 088908/Z/09/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) feature promising potential for cellular therapies, yet significant progress in development of MSC therapeutics and assays is hampered because of remarkable MSC heterogeneity in vivo and in vitro. This heterogeneity poses challenges for standardization of MSC characterization and potency assays as well as for MSC study comparability and manufacturing. This review discusses promising marker combinations for prospective MSC subpopulation enrichment and expansion, and reflects MSC phenotype changes due to environment and age. In order to address animal modelling in MSC biology, comparison of mouse and human MSC markers highlights current common ground of MSCs between species.

Indexed as

AnimalsBone Marrow CellsCells, CulturedHumansMesenchymal Stem Cells

Identifiers

PMID26282627
PMCPMC4539918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.