Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26981169›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of stem cells2016

Generation of diverse neural cell types through direct conversion.

Gayle F Petersen, Padraig M Strappe

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of stem cells, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gayle F PetersenGayle F Petersen, Padraig M Strappe, School of Biomedical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.
Padraig M StrappeGayle F Petersen, Padraig M Strappe, School of Biomedical Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.
Charles Sturt University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A characteristic of neurological disorders is the loss of critical populations of cells that the body is unable to replace, thus there has been much interest in identifying methods of generating clinically relevant numbers of cells to replace those that have been damaged or lost. The process of neural direct conversion, in which cells of one lineage are converted into cells of a neural lineage without first inducing pluripotency, shows great potential, with evidence of the generation of a range of functional neural cell types both in vitro and in vivo, through viral and non-viral delivery of exogenous factors, as well as chemical induction methods. Induced neural cells have been proposed as an attractive alternative to neural cells derived from embryonic or induced pluripotent stem cells, with prospective roles in the investigation of neurological disorders, including neurodegenerative disease modelling, drug screening, and cellular replacement for regenerative medicine applications, however further investigations into improving the efficacy and safety of these methods need to be performed before neural direct conversion becomes a clinically viable option. In this review, we describe the generation of diverse neural cell types via direct conversion of somatic cells, with comparison against stem cell-based approaches, as well as discussion of their potential research and clinical applications.

Indexed as

Adult stem cellsClinical applicationsDirect conversionEmbryonic stem cellsGeneration of neural cellsInduced neural cellsInduced pluripotent stem cellsIn vitro differentiationIn vivo differentiation

Identifiers

PMID26981169
PMCPMC4766249
OpenAlexW2300097380

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.