ArticleMolecular medicine reports2017
Comparison of the early response of human embryonic stem cells and human induced pluripotent stem cells to ionizing radiation.
Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNA damage and repair in differentiation of stem cells and cells of connective cell lineages: A trigger or a complication?European journal of histochemistry : EJH · 2021Review
- Article
- DNA repair fidelity in stem cell maintenance, health, and disease.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease · 2020Review
- Molecular and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms of normal stem cell radiosensitivity.Cell death discovery · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the well-demonstrated efficacy of stem cell (SC) therapy, this approach has a number of key drawbacks. One important concern is the response of pluripotent SCs to treatment with ionizing radiation (IR), given that SCs used in regenerative medicine will eventually be exposed to IR for diagnostic or treatment‑associated purposes. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to examine and compare early IR‑induced responses of pluripotent SCs to assess their radioresistance and radiosensitivity. In the present study, 3 cell lines; human embryonic SCs (hESCs), human induced pluripotent SCs (hiPSCs) and primary human dermal fibroblasts (PHDFs); were exposed to IR at doses ranging from 0 to 15 gray (Gy). Double strand breaks (DSBs), and the gene expression of the following DNA repair genes were analyzed: P53; RAD51; BRCA2; PRKDC; and XRCC4. hiPSCs demonstrated greater radioresistance, as fewer DSBs were identified, compared with hESCs. Both pluripotent SC lines exhibited distinct gene expression profiles in the most common DNA repair genes that are involved in homologous recombination, non‑homologous end‑joining and enhanced DNA damage response following IR exposure. Although hESCs and hiPSCs are equivalent in terms of capacity for pluripotency and differentiation into 3 germ layers, the results of the present study indicate that these 2 types of SCs differ in gene expression following exposure to IR. Consequently, further research is required to determine whether hiPSCs and hESCs are equally safe for application in clinical practice. The present study contributes to a greater understanding of DNA damage response (DDR) mechanisms activated in pluripotent SCs and may aid in the future development of safe SC‑based clinical protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.