ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2023
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells for Tissue-Engineered Skeletal Muscles.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioprinting in Tissue Repair and Its ENT Applications.Polymers · 2026Review
- Addressing hurdles in cultured meat by exploring reduced myogenesis after bovine myoblast expansion.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Bioinstructive scaffolds enhance stem cell engraftment for functional tissue regeneration.Nature materials · 2025Article
- Integrative Approaches to Myopathies and Muscular Dystrophies: Molecular Mechanisms, Diagnostics, and Future Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Advances in Drug Delivery Integrated with Regenerative Medicine: Innovations, Challenges, and Future Frontiers.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Biomaterial-Based Regenerative Strategies for Volumetric Muscle Loss: Challenges and Solutions.Advances in wound care · 2025Review
- Engineered extracellular vesicles derived from pluripotent stem cells: a cell-free approach to regenerative medicine.Burns & trauma · 2025Review
- Two Decades of Advances and Limitations in Organ Recellularization.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Skeletal muscle, which comprises a significant portion of the body, is responsible for vital functions such as movement, metabolism, and overall health. However, severe injuries often result in volumetric muscle loss (VML) and compromise the regenerative capacity of the muscle. Tissue-engineered muscles offer a potential solution to address lost or damaged muscle tissue, thereby restoring muscle function and improving patients' quality of life. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have emerged as a valuable cell source for muscle tissue engineering due to their pluripotency and self-renewal capacity, enabling the construction of tissue-engineered artificial skeletal muscles with applications in transplantation, disease modelling, and bio-hybrid robots. Next-generation iPSC-based models have the potential to revolutionize drug discovery by offering personalized muscle cells for testing, reducing reliance on animal models. This review provides a comprehensive overview of iPSCs in tissue-engineered artificial skeletal muscles, highlighting the advancements, applications, advantages, and challenges for clinical translation. We also discussed overcoming limitations and considerations in differentiation protocols, characterization methods, large-scale production, and translational regulations. By tackling these challenges, iPSCs can unlock transformative advancements in muscle tissue engineering and therapeutic interventions for the future.
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.