ReviewCurrent opinion in genetics & development2025
Totipotency or plenipotency: rethinking stem cell bipotentiality.
Review in Current opinion in genetics & development, 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.
- Decoding stage-specific functions of PRC2 in early embryogenesis uncovers roles in preimplantation development and primordial germ cell fate.Nature cell biology · 2026Article
- Decoding the cell intrinsic and extrinsic roles of PRC2 in early embryogenesis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- CRISPR/Cas-edited iPSCs and mesenchymal stem cells: a concise review of their potential in thalassemia therapy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The term 'totipotency' has often been misapplied in stem cell research to describe cells with embryonic and extraembryonic bipotentiality, despite a lack of evidence that they can generate an entire organism from a single cell. Additionally, no specific term currently distinguishes bipotential stem cells from pluripotent cells, which contribute poorly to extraembryonic tissues. This review examines the developmental continuum from totipotency to pluripotency in early embryos and revisits the previously proposed concept of plenipotency in preimplantation development. We evaluate emerging stem cell models that exhibit bipotentiality but have lost the ability to autonomously initiate and sustain the sequential fate decisions necessary to develop into a complete organism. Unlike totipotent embryonic cells, which retain the information required to initiate fate decisions at the correct timing and cell numbers, these stem cells have lost that capacity. This loss of critical developmental information distinguishes totipotency from plenipotency, with bipotential stem cells aligning more closely with the latter. By distinguishing plenipotency from totipotency and pluripotency, we aim to refine terminology, enhance our understanding of early embryonic development, and address ethical considerations in human research.
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.