Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30895264›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2019

Two decades of embryonic stem cells: a historical overview.

C Eguizabal, B Aran, S M Chuva de Sousa Lopes, M Geens, B Heindryckx, S Panula, M Popovic, R Vassena, A Veiga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Overcoming the challenges of scalable iPSC generation in translation medicine.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Hair Follicle Stem Cells for Tissue Regeneration.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Stem cells and common biomaterials in dentistry: a review study.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2022
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

9 authors.

C EguizabalCell Therapy and Stem Cell Group, Basque Center for Blood Transfusion and Human Tissues, Barrio Labeaga S/N, Galdakao, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8738-2077
B AranBarcelona Stem Cell Bank, Centre of Regenerative Medicine in Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5011-7755
S M Chuva de Sousa LopesDepartment of Anatomy and Embryology, Leiden University Medical Center, Einthovenweg 20, Leiden, The Netherlands.
M GeensResearch Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Univeristeit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, Jette (Brussels), Belgium.
B HeindryckxGhent Fertility and Stem cell Team (G-FaST), Department for Reproductive Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0630-8420
S PanulaDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
M PopovicGhent Fertility and Stem cell Team (G-FaST), Department for Reproductive Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
R VassenaClínica EUGIN, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0846-0365
A VeigaBarcelona Stem Cell Bank, Centre of Regenerative Medicine in Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0943-9904

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionHow did the field of stem cell research develop in the years following the derivation of the first human embryonic stem cell (hESC) line? SUMMARY ANSWER: Supported by the increasing number of clinical trials to date, significant technological advances in the past two decades have brought us ever closer to clinical therapies derived from pluripotent cells. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since their discovery 20 years ago, the use of human pluripotent stem cells has progressed tremendously from bench to bedside. Here, we provide a concise review of the main keystones of this journey and focus on ongoing clinical trials, while indicating the most relevant future research directions. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a historical narrative, including relevant publications in the field of pluripotent stem cells (PSC) derivation and differentiation, recounted both through scholarly research of published evidence and interviews of six pioneers who participated in some of the most relevant discoveries in the field. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsThe authors all contributed by researching the literature and agreed upon body of works. Portions of the interviews of the field pioneers have been integrated into the review and have also been included in full for advanced reader interest. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The stem cell field is ever expanding. We find that in the 20 years since the derivation of the first hESC lines, several relevant developments have shaped the pluripotent cell field, from the discovery of different states of pluripotency, the derivation of induced PSC, the refinement of differentiation protocols with several clinical trials underway, as well as the recent development of organoids. The challenge for the years to come will be to validate and refine PSCs for clinical use, from the production of highly defined cell populations in clinical grade conditions to the possibility of creating replacement organoids for functional, if not anatomical, function restoration. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is a non-systematic review of current literature. Some references may have escaped the experts' analysis due to the exceedingly diverse nature of the field. As the field of regenerative medicine is rapidly advancing, some of the most recent developments may have not been captured entirely. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThe multi-disciplinary nature and tremendous potential of the stem cell field has important implications for basic as well as translational research. Recounting these activities will serve to provide an in-depth overview of the field, fostering a further understanding of human stem cell and developmental biology. The comprehensive overview of clinical trials and expert opinions included in this narrative may serve as a valuable scientific resource, supporting future efforts in translational approaches. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: ESHRE provided funding for the authors' on-site meeting and discussion during the preparation of this manuscript. S.M.C.S.L. is funded by the European Research Council Consolidator (ERC-CoG-725722-OVOGROWTH). M.P. is supported by the Special Research Fund, Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds (BOF01D08114). M.G. is supported by the Methusalem grant of Vrije Universiteit Brussel, in the name of Prof. Karen Sermon and by Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT, Project Number: 150042). A.V. and B.A. are supported by the Plataforma de Proteomica, Genotipado y Líneas Celulares (PT1770019/0015) (PRB3), Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Research grant to B.H. by the Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO) (FWO.KAN.2016.0005.01 and FWO.Project G051516N). There are no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Indexed as

clinical trialsdifferentiationhuman embryonic stem cell (hESC)human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSC)pluripotencyregenerative medicine

Identifiers

PMID30895264
PMCPMC6396646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.