Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35815665›Full record

ArticleCell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.)2022

Comparing the mitochondrial signatures in ESCs and iPSCs and their neural derivations.

Cecilie Katrin Kristiansen, Anbin Chen, Lena Elise Høyland, Mathias Ziegler, Gareth John Sullivan, Laurence A Bindoff, Kristina Xiao Liang

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Plant-derived exosomes extracted fromBioengineering & translational medicine · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Cecilie Katrin KristiansenDepartment of Clinical Medicine (K1), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Anbin ChenDepartment of Clinical Medicine (K1), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Lena Elise HøylandDepartment of Biomedicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Mathias ZieglerDepartment of Biomedicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Gareth John SullivanDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Laurence A BindoffDepartment of Clinical Medicine (K1), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Kristina Xiao LiangDepartment of Clinical Medicine (K1), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3586-4218
Haukeland University Hospital · NOUniversity of Bergen · NOOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have distinct origins: ESCs are derived from pre-implanted embryos while iPSCs are reprogrammed somatic cells. Both have their own characteristics and lineage specificity, and both are valuable tools for studying human neurological development and disease. Thus far, few studies have analyzed how differences between stem cell types influence mitochondrial function and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) homeostasis during differentiation into neural and glial lineages. In this study, we compared mitochondrial function and mtDNA replication in human ESCs and iPSCs at three different stages - pluripotent, neural progenitor and astrocyte. We found that while ESCs and iPSCs have a similar mitochondrial signature, neural and astrocyte derivations manifested differences. At the neural stem cell (NSC) stage, iPSC-NSCs displayed decreased ATP production and a reduction in mitochondrial respiratory chain (MRC) complex IV expression compared to ESC-NSCs. IPSC-astrocytes showed increased mitochondrial activity including elevated ATP production, MRC complex IV expression, mtDNA copy number and mitochondrial biogenesis relative to those derived from ESCs. These findings show that while ESCs and iPSCs are similar at the pluripotent stage, differences in mitochondrial function may develop during differentiation and must be taken into account when extrapolating results from different cell types.

Indexed as

Induced Pluripotent Stem CellsAdenosine TriphosphateAutophagy-Related Protein-1 HomologCell DifferentiationDNA, MitochondrialDoublecortin Domain ProteinsEmbryonic Stem CellsEstersExcitatory Amino Acid Transporter 1Glial Fibrillary Acidic ProteinGlutamate-Ammonia LigaseHumansLysineMicrotubule-Associated ProteinsMitochondriaPeroxisome Proliferator-Activated ReceptorsAdenosine TriphosphateAutophagy-Related Protein-1 HomologDNA, MitochondrialDoublecortin Domain ProteinsEstersExcitatory Amino Acid Transporter 1Glial Fibrillary Acidic ProteinGlutamate-Ammonia LigaseLysineMicrotubule-Associated ProteinsPeroxisome Proliferator-Activated ReceptorsReactive Oxygen SpeciesSerum Albumin, BovineSirtuin 1astrocytesESCsIPSCsmitochondrial biogenesismitochondrial functionNSCs

Identifiers

PMID35815665
PMCPMC9518993
OpenAlexW4285013460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.