ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Genetic Cardiomyopathies: The Lesson Learned from hiPSCs.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. 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.
- Genetic vulnerability and dynamic mechanical stress synergistically drive sarcomere failure in human iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Review
- Myocardial Mechanics and Associated Valvular and Vascular Abnormalities in Left Ventricular Noncompaction Cardiomyopathy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Functional defects in hiPSCs-derived cardiomyocytes from patients with a PLEKHM2-mutation associated with dilated cardiomyopathy and left ventricular non-compaction.Biological research · 2023Article
- Functional Characterisation of the RareInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- The Role of MicroRNAs in Dilated Cardiomyopathy: New Insights for an Old Entity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Observational
- Recessive ciliopathy mutations in primary endocardial fibroelastosis: a rare neonatal cardiomyopathy in a case of Alstrom syndrome.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2021Article
- Recent Advances in CRISPR/Cas9-Based Genome Editing Tools for Cardiac Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic cardiomyopathies represent a wide spectrum of inherited diseases and constitute an important cause of morbidity and mortality among young people, which can manifest with heart failure, arrhythmias, and/or sudden cardiac death. Multiple underlying genetic variants and molecular pathways have been discovered in recent years; however, assessing the pathogenicity of new variants often needs in-depth characterization in order to ascertain a causal role in the disease. The application of human induced pluripotent stem cells has greatly helped to advance our knowledge in this field and enabled to obtain numerous in vitro patient-specific cellular models useful to study the underlying molecular mechanisms and test new therapeutic strategies. A milestone in the research of genetically determined heart disease was the introduction of genomic technologies that provided unparalleled opportunities to explore the genetic architecture of cardiomyopathies, thanks to the generation of isogenic pairs. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the main research that helped elucidate the pathophysiology of the most common genetic cardiomyopathies: hypertrophic, dilated, arrhythmogenic, and left ventricular noncompaction cardiomyopathies. A special focus is provided on the application of gene-editing techniques in understanding key disease characteristics and on the therapeutic approaches that have been tested.
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.