Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29353456›Full record

ReviewMolecular neurobiology2018

In Vivo Transient and Partial Cell Reprogramming to Pluripotency as a Therapeutic Tool for Neurodegenerative Diseases.

S Tamanini, G P Comi, S Corti

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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cellular senescence and aging: molecular mechanisms and convergent pathways.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Aging, Cellular Senescence, and Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2020
    Review
  13. Aging: therapeutics for a healthy future.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2020
    Review
  14. 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

3 authors.

S TamaniniDino Ferrari Centre, Neuroscience Section, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation (DEPT), Neurology Unit, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20122, Milan, Italy.
G P ComiDino Ferrari Centre, Neuroscience Section, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation (DEPT), Neurology Unit, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20122, Milan, Italy.
S CortiDino Ferrari Centre, Neuroscience Section, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation (DEPT), Neurology Unit, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20122, Milan, Italy. stefania.corti@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5425-969X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In theory, human diseases in which a specific cell type degenerates, such as neurodegenerative diseases, can be therapeutically addressed by replacement of the lost cells. The classical strategy for cell replacement is exogenous cell transplantation, but now, cell replacement can also be achieved with in situ reprogramming. Indeed, many of these disorders are age-dependent, and "rejuvenating" strategies based on cell epigenetic modifications are a possible approach to counteract disease progression. In this context, transient and/or partial reprogramming of adult somatic cells towards pluripotency can be a promising tool for neuroregeneration. Temporary and controlled in vivo overexpression of Yamanaka reprogramming factors (Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc (OSKM)) has been proven feasible in different experimental settings and could be employed to facilitate in situ tissue regeneration; this regeneration can be accomplished either by producing novel stem/precursor cells, without the challenges posed by exogenous cell transplantation, or by changing the epigenetic adult cell signature to the signature of a younger cell. The risk of this procedure resides in the possible lack of perfect control of the process, carrying a potential oncogenic or unexpected cell phenotype hazard. Recent studies have suggested that these limits can be overcome by a tightly controlled cyclic regimen of short-term OSKM expression in vivo that prevents full reprogramming to the pluripotent state and avoids both tumorigenesis and the presence of unwanted undifferentiated cells. On the other hand, this strategy can enhance tissue regeneration for therapeutic purposes in aging-related neurological diseases as well. These data could open the path to further research on the therapeutic potential of in vivo reprogramming in regenerative medicine.

Indexed as

Cellular ReprogrammingAnimalsCarcinogenesisDisease Models, AnimalHumansKruppel-Like Factor 4Neurodegenerative DiseasesPluripotent Stem CellsTranslational Research, BiomedicalKruppel-Like Factor 4AgingIn vivo reprogrammingProgeriaRegenerative medicineRejuvenationSenescenceTissue repairYamanaka Factors

Identifiers

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.