The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of defined culture systems for feeder cell free propagation of human embryonic stem cells
Open accessAbstract
There are many reports of defined culture systems for the propagation of human embryonic stem cells in the absence of feeder cell support, but no previous study has undertaken a multi-laboratory comparison of these diverse methodologies. In this study, five separate laboratories, each with experience in human embryonic stem cell culture, used a panel of ten embryonic stem cell lines (including WA09 as an index cell line common to all laboratories) to assess eight cell culture methods, with propagation in the presence of Knockout Serum Replacer, FGF-2, and mouse embryonic fibroblast feeder cell layers serving as a positive control. The cultures were assessed for up to ten passages for attachment, death, and differentiated morphology by phase contrast microscopy, for growth by serial cell counts, and for maintenance of stem cell surface marker expression by flow cytometry. Of the eight culture systems, only the control and those based on two commercial media, mTeSR1 and STEMPRO, supported maintenance of most cell lines for ten passages. Cultures grown in the remaining media failed before this point due to lack of attachment, cell death, or overt cell differentiation. Possible explanations for relative success of the commercial formulations in this study, and the lack of success with other formulations from academic groups compared to previously published results, include: the complex combination of growth factors present in the commercial preparations; improved development, manufacture, and quality control in the commercial products; differences in epigenetic adaptation to culture in vitro between different ES cell lines grown in different laboratories.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Derivation of human embryonic stem cells in defined conditions
Ludwig, T. E., Levenstein, M. E., Jones, J. M., Berggren, W. T., Mitchen, E. R., Frane, J. L., Crandall, L. J., Daigh, C. A., Conard, K. R., Piekarczyk, M. S., et al. (2006) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1177 · Cited by 1,114
Self-citationFeeder-independent culture of human embryonic stem cells
Ludwig, T. E., Bergendahl, V., Levenstein, M. E., Yu, J., Probasco, M. D., & Thomson, J. A. (2006) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth902 · Cited by 681 · cited 5×
“…study, and the lack of success with other formulations from academic groups compared to previously published results, include: the complex combination of growth factors present in the commercial preparations; improved development, manufacture, and quality control in the commercial products;…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Cited by
Chemically defined conditions for human iPSC derivation and culture
Chen, G., Gulbranson, D. R., Hou, Z., Bolin, J. M., Ruotti, V., Probasco, M. D., Smuga-Otto, K., Howden, S. E., Diol, N. R., Propson, N. E., et al. (2011) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1593 · Cited by 1,447
Burridge, P. W., Keller, G., Gold, J. D., & Wu, J. C. (2012) · Cell Stem Cell · doi:10.1016/j.stem.2011.12.013 · Cited by 670
Miyazaki, T., Futaki, S., Suemori, H., Taniguchi, Y., Yamada, M., Kawasaki, M., Hayashi, M., Kumagai, H., Nakatsuji, N., Sekiguchi, K., et al. (2012) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms2231 · Cited by 368
Self-citationHuman pluripotent stem cell culture: considerations for maintenance, expansion, and therapeutics
Chen, K. G., Mallon, B. S., McKay, R. D. G., & Robey, P. G. (2014) · Cell Stem Cell · doi:10.1016/j.stem.2013.12.005 · Cited by 358
Self-citationLong-term maintenance of human induced pluripotent stem cells by automated cell culture system
Konagaya, S., Ando, T., Yamauchi, T., Suemori, H., & Iwata, H. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep16647 · Cited by 94
Metadata
- Authors
- The International Stem Cell Initiative Consortium, Akopian, V., Andrews, P. W., Beil, S., Benvenisty, N., Brehm, J., Christie, M., Ford, A., Fox, V., Gokhale, P. J., Healy, L., Holm, F., Hovatta, O., Knowles, B. B., Ludwig, T. E., McKay, R. D. G., Miyazaki, T., Nakatsuji, N., Oh, S. K. W., Pera, M. F., Rossant, J., Stacey, G. N., & Suemori, H.
- Venue
- In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Animal
- Published
- 2010-02-26
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 247-258
- ISSN
- 1071-2690 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-706X
- OpenAlex
- W2127302135
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of defined culture systems for feeder cell free propagation of human embryonic stem cells. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11626-010-9297-z
- The paper
- The International Stem Cell Initiative Consortium, Akopian, V., Andrews, P. W., Beil, S., Benvenisty, N., Brehm, J., Christie, M., Ford, A., Fox, V., Gokhale, P. J., Healy, L., Holm, F., Hovatta, O., Knowles, B. B., Ludwig, T. E., McKay, R. D. G., Miyazaki, T., Nakatsuji, N., Oh, S. K. W., . . . Suemori, H. (2010). Comparison of defined culture systems for feeder cell free propagation of human embryonic stem cells. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Animal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11626-010-9297-z
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.