Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34287353›Full record

ArticleMethods and protocols2021

A Multistep Workflow to Evaluate Newly Generated iPSCs and Their Ability to Generate Different Cell Types.

Carol X-Q Chen, Narges Abdian, Gilles Maussion, Rhalena A Thomas, Iveta Demirova, Eddie Cai, Mahdieh Tabatabaei, Lenore K Beitel, Jason Karamchandani, Edward A Fon and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods and protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carol X-Q ChenThe Neuro's Early Drug Discovery Unit (EDDU), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.
Narges AbdianThe Neuro's Early Drug Discovery Unit (EDDU), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.
Gilles MaussionThe Neuro's Early Drug Discovery Unit (EDDU), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5785-6238
Rhalena A ThomasThe Neuro's Early Drug Discovery Unit (EDDU), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.
Iveta DemirovaThe Neuro's Early Drug Discovery Unit (EDDU), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4243-4398
Eddie CaiThe Neuro's Early Drug Discovery Unit (EDDU), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.
Mahdieh TabatabaeiThe Neuro's Clinical Biological Imaging and Genetic Repository (C-BIG), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.
Lenore K BeitelThe Neuro's Early Drug Discovery Unit (EDDU), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2836-5568
Jason KaramchandaniThe Neuro's Clinical Biological Imaging and Genetic Repository (C-BIG), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.
Edward A FonThe Neuro's Early Drug Discovery Unit (EDDU), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.
Thomas M DurcanThe Neuro's Early Drug Discovery Unit (EDDU), McGill University, 3801 University Street, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada.
Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital · CA

Funding

CIHR PJT - 169095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) derived from human somatic cells have created new opportunities to generate disease-relevant cells. Thus, as the use of patient-derived stem cells has become more widespread, having a workflow to monitor each line is critical. This ensures iPSCs pass a suite of quality-control measures, promoting reproducibility across experiments and between labs. With this in mind, we established a multistep workflow to assess our newly generated iPSCs. Our workflow tests four benchmarks: cell growth, genomic stability, pluripotency, and the ability to form the three germline layers. We also outline a simple test for assessing cell growth and highlight the need to compare different growth media. Genomic integrity in the human iPSCs is analyzed by G-band karyotyping and a qPCR-based test for the detection of common karyotypic abnormalities. Finally, we confirm that the iPSC lines can differentiate into a given cell type, using a trilineage assay, and later confirm that each iPSC can be differentiated into one cell type of interest, with a focus on the generation of cortical neurons. Taken together, we present a multistep quality-control workflow to evaluate newly generated iPSCs and detail the findings on these lines as they are tested within the workflow.

Indexed as

cortical neuronsgenomic integrityhuman-induced pluripotent stem cellsneural progenitor cellsquality controltrilineage differentiation

Identifiers

PMID34287353
PMCPMC8293472
OpenAlexW3186824561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.