Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Restorative effects of human neural stem cell grafts on the primate spinal cord

Open access
Rosenzweig, Ephron S, Brock, John H, Lu, Paul, Kumamaru, Hiromi, Salegio, Ernesto A, Kadoya, Ken, Weber, Janet L, Liang, Justine J, Moseanko, Rod, Hawbecker, Stephanie, Huie, J Russell, Havton, Leif A, Nout-Lomas, Yvette S, Ferguson, Adam R, Beattie, Michael S, Bresnahan, Jacqueline C, Tuszynski, Mark H·2018·Nature Medicine

Abstract

We grafted human spinal cord–derived neural progenitor cells (NPCs) into sites of cervical spinal cord injury in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Under three-drug immunosuppression, grafts survived at least 9 months postinjury and expressed both neuronal and glial markers. Monkey axons regenerated into grafts and formed synapses. Hundreds of thousands of human axons extended out from grafts through monkey white matter and synapsed in distal gray matter. Grafts gradually matured over 9 months and improved forelimb function beginning several months after grafting. These findings in a 'preclinical trial' support translation of NPC graft therapy to humans with the objective of reconstituting both a neuronal and glial milieu in the site of spinal cord injury.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nm.4502

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 342

Metadata

Authors
Rosenzweig, E. S., Brock, J. H., Lu, P., Kumamaru, H., Salegio, E. A., Kadoya, K., Weber, J. L., Liang, J. J., Moseanko, R., Hawbecker, S., Huie, J. R., Havton, L. A., Nout-Lomas, Y. S., Ferguson, A. R., Beattie, M. S., Bresnahan, J. C., & Tuszynski, M. H.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2018-02-26
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
484-490
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2790049490
Cited by
342
References
5
FWCI
27.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.