ReviewCells2023
Direct Cell Reprogramming and Phenotypic Conversion: An Analysis of Experimental Attempts to Transform Astrocytes into Neurons in Adult Animals.
Review in Cells, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel heterozygous mutation in KMT2B causing an unusual phenotypic presentation: a comprehensive clinical and bioinformatic analysis.Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
- Glial Cell Reprogramming in Ischemic Stroke: A Review of Recent Advancements and Translational Challenges.Translational stroke research · 2025Review
- Single-cell RNA sequencing provides new insights into the interaction between astrocytes and neurons after spinal cord injury in mice.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025Article
- Controversies and insights into PTBP1-related astrocyte-neuron transdifferentiation: neuronal regeneration strategies for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.Translational neurodegeneration · 2024Review
- Chemical Transdifferentiation of Somatic Cells: Unleashing the Power of Small Molecules.Biomedicines · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Central nervous system (CNS) repair after injury or disease remains an unresolved problem in neurobiology research and an unmet medical need. Directly reprogramming or converting astrocytes to neurons (AtN) in adult animals has been investigated as a potential strategy to facilitate brain and spinal cord recovery and advance fundamental biology. Conceptually, AtN strategies rely on forced expression or repression of lineage-specific transcription factors to make endogenous astrocytes become "induced neurons" (iNs), presumably without re-entering any pluripotent or multipotent states. The AtN-derived cells have been reported to manifest certain neuronal functions in vivo. However, this approach has raised many new questions and alternative explanations regarding the biological features of the end products (e.g., iNs versus neuron-like cells, neural functional changes, etc.), developmental biology underpinnings, and neurobiological essentials. For this paper per se, we proposed to draw an unconventional distinction between direct cell conversion and direct cell reprogramming, relative to somatic nuclear transfer, based on the experimental methods utilized to initiate the transformation process, aiming to promote a more in-depth mechanistic exploration. Moreover, we have summarized the current tactics employed for AtN induction, comparisons between the bench endeavors concerning outcome tangibility, and discussion of the issues of published AtN protocols. Lastly, the urgency to clearly define/devise the theoretical frameworks, cell biological bases, and bench specifics to experimentally validate primary data of AtN studies was highlighted.
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.