Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27182743›Full record

ArticleJournal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics2016

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Retinal Pigmented Epithelium: A Comparative Study Between Cell Lines and Differentiation Methods.

Lyndsay L Leach, Roxanne H Croze, Qirui Hu, Vignesh P Nadar, Tracy N Clevenger, Britney O Pennington, David M Gamm, Dennis O Clegg

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Looking for In Vitro Models for Retinal Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lyndsay L Leach1 Center for Stem Cell Biology and Engineering, University of California , Santa Barbara, California.
Roxanne H Croze1 Center for Stem Cell Biology and Engineering, University of California , Santa Barbara, California.
Qirui Hu1 Center for Stem Cell Biology and Engineering, University of California , Santa Barbara, California.
Vignesh P Nadar1 Center for Stem Cell Biology and Engineering, University of California , Santa Barbara, California.
Tracy N Clevenger1 Center for Stem Cell Biology and Engineering, University of California , Santa Barbara, California.
Britney O Pennington1 Center for Stem Cell Biology and Engineering, University of California , Santa Barbara, California.
David M Gamm5 Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison , Madison, Wisconsin.
Dennis O Clegg1 Center for Stem Cell Biology and Engineering, University of California , Santa Barbara, California.
University of California, Santa Barbara · USCalifornia State University, Channel Islands · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Spectral Laser Scanning Biological MicroscopeS10OD010610 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA · PI RAVEN, MARY A · 2012 to 2012
$429k
NIH HHS S10 OD010610
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe application of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived retinal pigmented epithelium (iPSC-RPE) in patients with retinal degenerative disease is making headway toward the clinic, with clinical trials already underway. Multiple groups have developed methods for RPE differentiation from pluripotent cells, but previous studies have shown variability in iPSC propensity to differentiate into RPE.

methodsThis study provides a comparison between 2 different methods for RPE differentiation: (1) a commonly used spontaneous continuously adherent culture (SCAC) protocol and (2) a more rapid, directed differentiation using growth factors. Integration-free iPSC lines were differentiated to RPE, which were characterized with respect to global gene expression, expression of RPE markers, and cellular function.

resultsWe found that all 5 iPSC lines (iPSC-1, iPSC-2, iPSC-3, iPSC-4, and iPSC-12) generated RPE using the directed differentiation protocol; however, 2 of the 5 iPSC lines (iPSC-4 and iPSC-12) did not yield RPE using the SCAC method. Both methods can yield bona fide RPE that expresses signature RPE genes and carry out RPE functions, and are similar, but not identical to fetal RPE. No differences between methods were detected in transcript levels, protein localization, or functional analyses between iPSC-1-RPE, iPSC-2-RPE, and iPSC-3-RPE. Directed iPSC-3-RPE showed enhanced transcript levels of RPE65 compared to directed iPSC-2-RPE and increased BEST1 expression and pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) secretion compared to directed iPSC-1-RPE. In addition, SCAC iPSC-3-RPE secreted more PEDF than SCAC iPSC-1-RPE.

conclusionsThe directed protocol is a more reliable method for differentiating RPE from various pluripotent sources and some iPSC lines are more amenable to RPE differentiation.

Indexed as

Cell DifferentiationCell LineHumansInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsRetinal Pigment Epithelium

Identifiers

PMID27182743
PMCPMC5911695
OpenAlexW2405682749

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.