Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27494674›Full record

ReviewCell stem cell2016

Contributions of Mammalian Chimeras to Pluripotent Stem Cell Research.

Victoria L Mascetti, Roger A Pedersen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cell stem cell, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Reconstructing Waddington Landscape from Cell Migration and Proliferation.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Bovine Pluripotent Stem Cells: Current Status and Prospects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Victoria L MascettiBritish Heart Foundation Oxbridge Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SZ, UK; Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SZ, UK. Electronic address: vlm37@cam.ac.uk.
Roger A PedersenWellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SZ, UK; Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SZ, UK. Electronic address: ralp2@cam.ac.uk.

Funding

British Heart FoundationMedical Research Council MC_PC_12009Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chimeras are widely acknowledged as the gold standard for assessing stem cell pluripotency, based on their capacity to test donor cell lineage potential in the context of an organized, normally developing tissue. Experimental chimeras provide key insights into mammalian developmental mechanisms and offer a resource for interrogating the fate potential of various pluripotent stem cell states. We highlight the applications and current limitations presented by intra- and inter-species chimeras and consider their future contribution to the stem cell field. Despite the technical and ethical demands of experimental chimeras, including human-interspecies chimeras, they are a provocative resource for achieving regenerative medicine goals.

Indexed as

Stem Cell ResearchAnimalsCell LineageChimeraEmbryo, MammalianHumansPluripotent Stem CellsSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID27494674
PMCPMC5366358

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.