ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2022
Rethinking nomenclature for interspecies cell fusions.
Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The gene-regulatory evolution of the human skeleton.Nature · 2026Article
- Developmental signaling reveals functionally enriched human-specific gene regulation in telencephalic progenitors.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- CellBouncer, a unified toolkit for single-cell demultiplexing and ambient RNA analysis, reveals hominid mitochondrial incompatibilities.Cell genomics · 2026Article
- Segmentally Duplicated Regulatory Elements Undergo Human-Specific Rewiring.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Genomic approaches for understanding the evolution of the human brain.Nature neuroscience · 2026Review
- Segmentally duplicated regulatory elements undergo human-specific rewiring.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Addressing missing context in regulatory variation across primate evolution.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2025Review
- Article
- Human-specific genetics: new tools to explore the molecular and cellular basis of human evolution.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023Review
- Current advances in primate genomics: novel approaches for understanding evolution and disease.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023Review
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
Cell fusions have a long history of supporting biomedical research. These experimental models, historically referred to as 'somatic cell hybrids', involve combining the plasma membranes of two cells and merging their nuclei within a single cytoplasm. Cell fusion studies involving human and chimpanzee pluripotent stem cells, rather than somatic cells, highlight the need for responsible communication and a revised nomenclature. Applying the terms 'hybrid' and 'parental' to the fused and source cell lines, respectively, evokes reproductive relationships that do not exist between humans and other species. These misnomers become more salient in the context of fused pluripotent stem cells derived from different but closely related species. Here, we propose a precise, versatile and generalizable framework to describe these fused cell lines. We recommend the term 'composite cell line', to distinguish cell lines that are experimentally created through fusions from both reproductive hybrids and natural cell fusion events without obscuring the model in overly technical terms. For scientific audiences, we further recommend technical nomenclature that describes the contributing species, ploidy and cell type.
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.