Cited by 117Pluripotent Stem Cells ResearchDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationMesenchymal stem cell research

Variability of human pluripotent stem cell lines

Open access
Ortmann, Daniel, Vallier, Ludovic·2017·Current Opinion in Genetics & Development

Abstract

Human pluripotent stem cells derived from embryos (human Embryonic Stem Cells or hESCs) or generated by direct reprogramming of somatic cells (human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells or hiPSCs) can proliferate almost indefinitely in vitro while maintaining the capacity to differentiate into a broad diversity of cell types. These two properties (self-renewal and pluripotency) confers human pluripotent stem cells a unique interest for clinical applications since they could allow the production of infinite quantities of cells for disease modelling, drug screening and cell based therapy. However, recent studies have clearly established that human pluripotent stem cell lines can display variable capacity to differentiate into specific lineages. Consequently, the development of universal protocols of differentiation which could work efficiently with any human pluripotent cell line is complicated substantially. As a consequence, each protocol needs to be adapted to every cell line thereby limiting large scale applications and precluding personalised therapies. Here, we summarise our knowledge concerning the origin of this variability and describe potential solutions currently available to bypass this major challenge.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gde.2017.07.004

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 67 · Cited by 117

Authors
Ortmann, D., & Vallier, L.
Affiliations
Wellcome/MRC Cambridge Stem Cell Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Vallier, Ludovic
Venue
Current Opinion in Genetics & Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
46
Pages
179-185
ISSN
0959-437X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2745820973
Cited by
117
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Genetics & Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
Medical Research Council (MC_PC_12009)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Pluripotent Stem Cells Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Mesenchymal stem cell research
Keywords
human pluripotent stem cells, human embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, lineage specification, differentiation protocols, self-renewal, pluripotency, disease modeling, cell therapy, personalized medicine
MeSH terms
Cell Differentiation, Cell Line, Humans, Embryonic Stem Cells, Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells, Cellular Reprogramming

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