ArticleOpen life sciences2025
Proteome differences of dental stem cells between permanent and deciduous teeth by data-independent acquisition proteomics.
Article in Open life sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative proteomic analysis of Porphyromonas gingivalis challenged human dental pulp stem cells.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prospective proteomics for discovering biomarkers in lung adenocarcinoma: a literature review.Translational cancer research · 2025Review
- The Therapeutic Scope of Orofacial Mesenchymal Stem Cells.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dental pulp stem cells hold significant prospects for tooth regeneration and repair. However, a comprehensive understanding of the molecular differences between dental pulp stem cells (DPSC, from permanent teeth) and stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED, from deciduous teeth) remains elusive, which is crucial for optimizing their therapeutic potential. To address this gap, we employed a novel data-independent acquisition (DIA) proteomics approach to compare the protein expression profiles of DPSC and SHED. Based on nano-LC-MS/MS DIA proteomics, we identified over 7,000 proteins in both cell types. By comparing their expression levels, 209 differentially expressed proteins were identified. Subsequent Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes enrichment analyses, along with protein-protein interaction network construction, revealed significant metabolic differences and key regulatory nodes. DPSC exhibited significantly higher expression of proteins belonging to the NDUFB family, SMARC family, RPTOR and TLR3. These proteins are known to be involved in critical cellular processes such as mitochondrial energy metabolism, mTOR-related autophagy pathway, and innate immune response. Conversely, SHED displayed elevated expression of AKR1B family, which participated in glycerolipid metabolism and adipogenic differentiation, PRKG1, MGLL and UQCRB proteins associated with thermogenesis. These findings highlight the specific proteomic landscape of DPSC and SHED, suggesting their distinct biological roles and potential applications.
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.