Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26649054›Full record

ReviewStem cells international2016

Spheroid Culture of Mesenchymal Stem Cells.

Zoe Cesarz, Kenichi Tamama

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cells international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 237 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
237citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

237 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Neutral Buoyancy as a Simple Approach to Simulated Microgravity.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

177 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Zoe CesarzDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
Kenichi TamamaDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA ; McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compared with traditional 2D adherent cell culture, 3D spheroidal cell aggregates, or spheroids, are regarded as more physiological, and this technique has been exploited in the field of oncology, stem cell biology, and tissue engineering. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) cultured in spheroids have enhanced anti-inflammatory, angiogenic, and tissue reparative/regenerative effects with improved cell survival after transplantation. Cytoskeletal reorganization and drastic changes in cell morphology in MSC spheroids indicate a major difference in mechanophysical properties compared with 2D culture. Enhanced multidifferentiation potential, upregulated expression of pluripotency marker genes, and delayed replicative senescence indicate enhanced stemness in MSC spheroids. Furthermore, spheroid formation causes drastic changes in the gene expression profile of MSC in microarray analyses. In spite of these significant changes, underlying molecular mechanisms and signaling pathways triggering and sustaining these changes are largely unknown.

Identifiers

PMID26649054
PMCPMC4663368

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.