Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35003228›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2021

Cadaveric Stem Cells: Their Research Potential and Limitations.

Julia Cieśla, Marcin Tomsia

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cadaveric Adipose-Derived Stem Cells for Regenerative Medicine and Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julia CieślaSchool of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.
Marcin TomsiaDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Forensic Toxicology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.
Medical University of Silesia · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the era of growing interest in stem cells, the availability of donors for transplantation has become a problem. The isolation of embryonic and fetal cells raises ethical controversies, and the number of adult donors is deficient. Stem cells isolated from deceased donors, known as cadaveric stem cells (CaSCs), may alleviate this problem. So far, it was possible to isolate from deceased donors mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), adipose delivered stem cells (ADSCs), neural stem cells (NSCs), retinal progenitor cells (RPCs), induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). Recent studies have shown that it is possible to collect and use CaSCs from cadavers, even these with an extended postmortem interval (PMI) provided proper storage conditions (like cadaver heparinization or liquid nitrogen storage) are maintained. The presented review summarizes the latest research on CaSCs and their current therapeutic applications. It describes the developments in thanatotranscriptome and scaffolding for cadaver cells, summarizes their potential applications in regenerative medicine, and lists their limitations, such as donor's unknown medical condition in criminal cases, limited differentiation potential, higher risk of carcinogenesis, or changing DNA quality. Finally, the review underlines the need to develop procedures determining the safe CaSCs harvesting and use.

Indexed as

cadaveric scaffoldscadaveric stem cellsregenerative medicinethanatotranscriptometransplantology

Identifiers

PMID35003228
PMCPMC8727551
OpenAlexW4200204550

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.