Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26600740›Full record

ReviewEXCLI journal2015

Advances in hepatic stem/progenitor cell biology.

Stefaan Verhulst, Jan Best, Leo A van Grunsven, Laurent Dollé

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EXCLI journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Functional characterization of CD49fJournal of molecular histology · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Assessment of stem cell differentiation based on genome-wide expression profiles.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. EpCAM and the biology of hepatic stem/progenitor cells.American journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology · 2015
    Review
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

4 authors.

Stefaan VerhulstLiver Cell Biology Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Jan BestLiver Cell Biology Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Leo A van GrunsvenLiver Cell Biology Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Laurent DolléLiver Cell Biology Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The liver is famous for its strong regenerative capacity, employing different modes of regeneration according to type and extent of injury. Mature liver cells are able to proliferate in order to replace the damaged tissue allowing the recovery of the parenchymal function. In more severe scenarios hepatocytes are believed to arise also from a facultative liver progenitor cell compartment. In human, severe acute liver failure and liver cirrhosis are also both important clinical targets in which regeneration is impaired, where the role of this stem cell compartment seems more convincing. In animal models, the current state of ambiguity regarding the identity and role of liver progenitor cells in liver physiology dampens the enthusiasm for the potential use of these cells in regenerative medicine. The aim of this review is to give the basics of liver progenitor cell biology and discuss recent results vis-à-vis their identity and contribution to liver regeneration.

Identifiers

PMID26600740
PMCPMC4650945

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.