Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27981499›Full record

ReviewMolecular neurobiology2018

Direct Conversion of Somatic Cells into Induced Neurons.

Na An, Huiming Xu, Wei-Qiang Gao, Hao Yang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular neurobiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Stem Cell- and Cell-Based Therapies for Ischemic Stroke.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Na AnState Key Laboratory of Oncogenes and Related Genes, Renji-Med X Clinical Stem Cell Research Center, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200127, China.
Huiming XuState Key Laboratory of Oncogenes and Related Genes, Renji-Med X Clinical Stem Cell Research Center, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200127, China.
Wei-Qiang GaoState Key Laboratory of Oncogenes and Related Genes, Renji-Med X Clinical Stem Cell Research Center, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200127, China. gao.weiqiang@sjtu.edu.cn.
Hao YangState Key Laboratory of Oncogenes and Related Genes, Renji-Med X Clinical Stem Cell Research Center, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200127, China. yanghao.71_99@yahoo.com.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNState Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81371411National Natural Science Foundation of China 81571208Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine YG2014MS45
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The progressive loss and degeneration of neurons in the central nervous system (CNS), as a result of traumas or diseases including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Huntington's disease, stroke, and traumatic injury to the brain and spinal cord, can usually have devastating effects on quality of life. The current strategies available for treatments are described including drug delivery, surgery, electrical stimulation, and cell-based tissue engineering approaches. However, apart from cell-based therapy, other attempts are limited in improving clinical outcomes. Recently, stem cell and neural stem cell (NSC) in particular therapy has been proposed as an attractive and promising strategy for regenerative medicine due to their unique biological attributes, such as giving rise to neuronal lineage commitment in accordance with the neural development. Nevertheless, stem cell strategy still faces numerous challenges, including ethical issue, tumor formation, and graft rejection. Thus, seeking a more appropriate approach like direct reprogramming or lineage reprogramming is critical. Compared to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and embryonic stem cells (ESCs), direct lineage reprogramming of somatic cells to generate induced neurons (iNs) without undergoing a state of pluripotent still has several advantages such as short induction cycle, high transdifferentiation efficiency, no ethical concerns, and risk of neoplasia. On the basis of these advantages, cell reprogramming will hold great promise for therapeutic cell replacement, disease modeling establishment, drug screening, and personalized medicine. Here, we systematically review recent advances in somatic lineage reprogramming into iNs, including the identification of novel reprogramming factors, the underlying molecular mechanisms and the concerns exist, as well as the major challenges in the future.

Indexed as

Cell DifferentiationAnimalsCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyCellular ReprogrammingFibroblastsHumansNeuronsCell reprogrammingInduced neuronSomatic cellsTransdifferentiation

Identifiers

PMID27981499
OpenAlexW2563562487

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.