ArticleCells, tissues, organs2026
Mesenchymal Stromal Cells from Dental Tissues Demonstrate Neuronal Potential Pre- and Post-Induction.
Article in Cells, tissues, organs, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
<p>Introduction: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) play a crucial role in tissue repair and exhibit anti-inflammatory properties, making them promising for regenerative medicine. Dental tissue-derived MSCs, such as stromal cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHEDs) and dental pulp stromal cells (DPSCs), express neural markers and hold the potential for treating neurodegenerative diseases. Nonetheless, their relative ability to differentiate into neurons is still unclear. Given their shared embryonic origin, we hypothesised that SHEDs and DPSCs possess similar potential for neuronal differentiation along with intrinsic expression of neuronal markers. The objective of this study was to compare their differentiation abilities under standardised conditions, evaluate neuronal markers pro- and post-neuronal induction, and compare the neuronal differentiation potential of SHEDs and DPSCs.
methodsSHEDs (n = 3) and DPSCs (n = 3) were collected with ethical approval, cultured, and characterised according to established MSC criteria. Clonogenicity, proliferation, senescence, and trilineage differentiation were assessed. Neuronal differentiation was induced for 21 days and evaluated using flow cytometry (SRY-Box Transcription Factor 1 [SOX1], SRY-Box Transcription Factor 2 [SOX2], glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], doublecortin, nestin, CD56, CD146), immunofluorescence for βIII-tubulin, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for tubulin 3 (TUB3), and microtubule-associated protein 2 (MAP2).
resultsBoth SHEDs and DPSCs exhibited MSC characteristics. SHEDs showed higher clonogenicity. Early neuronal markers (e.g., SOX1, nestin, GFAP, βIII-tubulin) were detected pre- and post-induction in both cell types without significant intergroup differences. No significant expression of TUB3 and MAP2 was observed.
conclusionSHEDs and DPSCs show comparable neuronal marker expression profiles, suggesting similar early neuronal differentiation potential. These findings support using undifferentiated SHEDs and DPSCs in neuroregenerative strategies, offering cost-effective and safer alternatives to pre-differentiated cells. </p>.
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.