ReviewFrontiers in immunology2017
Inherent Immunogenicity or Lack Thereof of Pluripotent Stem Cells: Implications for Cell Replacement Therapy.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Newborn screening and biobanking for preventable genetic disorders in Mongolia: A developing country perspective.Regenerative therapy · 2026Review
- A human tumor-immune organoid model of glioblastoma.Cell reports · 2026Article
- Immunogenicity of autologous and allogeneic human primary cholangiocyte organoid cellular therapies.Cell reports. Medicine · 2025Article
- Human pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatic progenitors exhibit a partially hypoimmunogenic phenotype and actively inhibit immune responses.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Therapeutic function of a novel rat induced pluripotent stem cell line in a 6‑OHDA‑induced rat model of Parkinson's disease.International journal of molecular medicine · 2022Article
- Induced pluripotent stem cells for the treatment of liver diseases: challenges and perspectives from a clinical viewpoint.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
- The Challenge of Bringing iPSCs to the Patient.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Enhanced wound healing promotion by immune response-free monkey autologous iPSCs and exosomes vs. their allogeneic counterparts.EBioMedicine · 2019Article
- Derivation of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell (iPSC) Lines and Mechanism of Pluripotency: Historical Perspective and Recent Advances.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Donor-specific induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) offer opportunities for personalized cell replacement therapeutic approaches due to their unlimited self-renewal potential and ability to differentiate into different somatic cells. A significant progress has been made toward generating iPSC lines that are free of integrating viral vectors, development of xeno-free culture conditions, and differentiation of pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) into functional somatic cell lineages. Since donor-specific iPSC lines are genetically identical to the individual, they are expected to be immunologically matched and these iPSC lines and their cellular derivatives are not expected to be immunologically rejected. However, studies in mouse models, utilizing rejection of teratomas as a model, have claimed that syngenic iPSC lines, especially the iPSC lines derived with integrating viral vectors, could be inherently immunogenic. This manuscript reviews current understanding of inherent immunogenicity of PSC lines, especially that of the human iPSC lines and their cellular derivatives, and strategies to overcome it.
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.