ArticleIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal2020
Amniotic fluid mesenchymal stromal cells from early stages of embryonic development have higher self-renewal potential.
Article in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Amniotic Fluid Stem Cells in Birth Defects: Integrated Roles in Disease Modeling, Prenatal Diagnosis, and Therapy.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- 10th Anniversary of Biomedicines-Advances in Mesenchymal Stem Cells.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Metabolic Profile and Neurogenic Potential of Human Amniotic Fluid Stem Cells From Normal vs. Fetus-Affected Gestations.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Amniotic fluid (AF) is a rich source of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) that have the ability to differentiate into multiple lineages rendering them a promising and powerful tool for regenerative medicine. However, information regarding the differences among AFMSCs derived from different gestational stages is limited. In the present study, AFMSCs derived from 125 pregnant rats at four embryonic day (E) stages (E12, E15, E18, and E21) were isolated and cultured. The primary E15 cells were the smallest in size and the easiest to culture and usually grew in a spherical shape that resembled the growth morphology of embryonic stem cells (ESCs). Once adhered, the E12 and E15 AFMSCs grew faster and could be passaged more than 60 times while still maintaining a continuous proliferative state; however, AFMSCs derived from E18 and E21 could normally be maintained for only 10 passages. To identify the possible reasons for this difference, RT-qPCR was used to examine several genes associated with self-renewal ability and cell origin. The Sox2 expression levels indicated that AFMSCs from E12 and E15 possessed stronger self-renewal capability. The K19, Col2A1, FGF5, AFP, and SPC expression levels indicated there were mixed-population cells co-existing in the AFMSC culture. In conclusion, E15 cells were easier to culture than E12 cells, could be passaged more often, and had a higher Sox2 expression than E18 or E21 cells. The E15-derived AFMSCs had higher viability and proliferative capacity than cells from the later stages. Therefore, AF cells from the early stages could be a good choice for exploring potential treatments involving AFMSCs.
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.