Cited by 106Pluripotent Stem Cells ResearchMesenchymal stem cell researchDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation

Derivation, expansion and differentiation of induced pluripotent stem cells in continuous suspension cultures

Open access
Fluri, David A, Tonge, Peter D, Song, Hannah, Baptista, Ricardo P, Shakiba, Nika, Shukla, Shreya, Clarke, Geoffrey, Nagy, Andras +1 more·2012·Nature Methods

Abstract

We describe derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) from terminally differentiated mouse cells in serum- and feeder-free stirred suspension cultures. Temporal analysis of global gene expression revealed high correlations between cells reprogrammed in suspension and cells reprogrammed in adhesion-dependent conditions. Suspension culture-reprogrammed iPSCs (SiPSCs) could be differentiated into all three germ layers in vitro and contributed to chimeric embryos in vivo. SiPSC generation allowed for efficient selection of reprogramming factor-expressing cells based on their differential survival and proliferation in suspension culture. Seamless integration of SiPSC reprogramming and directed differentiation enabled scalable production of beating cardiac cells in a continuous single cell- and small aggregate-based process. This method is an important step toward the development of robust PSC generation, expansion and differentiation technology.

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/nmeth.1939

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • A microfluidic neural tube device presented simultaneous opposing gradients of growth factors to direct neural tube patterning, enabling recapitulation of the in vivo structure.

    “a microfluidic neural tube device was developed to present simultaneous opposing gradients of growth factors to direct neural tube patterning, enabling recapitulation of the in vivo structure92.”

    From Organoids (2022) · cites this paper as [92]

    The Introduction and Results describe continuous suspension culture and cardiac differentiation, while Methods > Differentiation protocols describes ectoderm differentiation without a neural tube device. Searches for microfluidic devices, opposing growth-factor gradients, and neural tube patterning found no passage addressing the attributed claim. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fluri, D. A., Tonge, P. D., Song, H., Baptista, R. P., Shakiba, N., Shukla, S., Clarke, G., Nagy, A., & Zandstra, P. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
Corresponding author
Zandstra, Peter W
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2012-03-25
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
509-516
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2015831230
Cited by
106
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (57885_1, MOP57885)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Pluripotent Stem Cells Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Mesenchymal stem cell research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Keywords
induced pluripotent stem cells, suspension culture, iPSC derivation, iPSC differentiation, cardiac differentiation, beating cardiomyocytes, serum-free culture, feeder-free culture, reprogramming, chimeric embryos, three germ layers
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Differentiation, Chimera, Fibroblasts, Cell Culture Techniques, Myocytes, Cardiac, Mice, 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