Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33063709›Full record

ArticleNeural regeneration research2021

Advances in human stem cell therapies: pre-clinical studies and the outlook for central nervous system regeneration.

Lindsey H Forbes, Melissa R Andrews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neural regeneration research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Lindsey H ForbesMedical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, The Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Melissa R AndrewsSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell transplantation has come to the forefront of regenerative medicine alongside the discovery and application of stem cells in both research and clinical settings. There are several types of stem cells currently being used for pre-clinical regenerative therapies, each with unique characteristics, benefits and limitations. This brief review will focus on recent basic science advancements made with embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. Both embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells provide platforms for new neurons to replace dead and/or dying cells following injury. Due to their capacity for reprogramming and differentiation into any neuronal type, research in preclinical rodent models has shown that embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells can integrate, survive and form connections in the nervous system similar to de novo cells. Going forward however, there are some limitations to consider with the use of either stem cell type. Ethically, embryonic stem cells are not an ideal source of cells, genetically, induced pluripotent stem cells are not ideal in terms of personalized treatment for those with certain genetic diseases the latter of which may guide regenerative medicine away from personalized stem cell based therapies and into optimized stem cell banks. Nonetheless, the potential of these stem cells in central nervous system regenerative therapy is only beginning to be appreciated. For example, through genetic modification, stem cells serve as ideal platforms to reintroduce missing or downregulated molecules into the nervous system to further induce regenerative growth. In this review, we highlight the limitations of stem cell based therapies whilst discussing some of the means of overcoming these limitations.

Indexed as

cell transplantationcentral nervous system regenerationembryonic stem cellsinduced pluripotent stem cellsspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID33063709
PMCPMC8067917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.