The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Differences between human embryonic stem cell lines
Abstract
The promise of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines for treating injuries and degenerative diseases, for understanding early human development, for disease modelling and for drug discovery, has brought much excitement to scientific communities as well as to the public. Although all of the lines derived worldwide share the expression of characteristic pluripotency markers, many differences are emerging between lines that may be more associated with the wide range of culture conditions in current use than the inherent genetic variation of the embryos from which embryonic stem cells were derived. Thus, the validity of many comparisons between lines published thus far is difficult to interpret. This article reviews the evidence for differences between lines, focusing on studies of pluripotency marker molecules, transcriptional profiling, genetic stability and epigenetic stability, for which there is most evidence. Recognition and assessment of environmentally induced differences will be important to facilitate the development of culture systems that maximize stability in culture and provide lines with maximal potential for safety and success in the range of possible applications.
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
Jaenisch, R., & Bird, A. (2003) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1089 · Cited by 6,325
Induction of tumors in mice by genomic hypomethylation
Gaudet, F., Hodgson, J. G., Eden, A., Jackson-Grusby, L., Dausman, J., Gray, J. W., Leonhardt, H., & Jaenisch, R. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1083558 · Cited by 1,499 · cited 1×
“DNA methylation alteration at non-imprinted genomic loci can induce genomic instability and is associated with cancer (Gaudet et al., 2003; Herman and Baylin, 2003; Baylin, 2005; Esteller, 2005).”
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
Cited by
Characterization of human embryonic stem cell lines by the International Stem Cell Initiative
Initiative, T. I. S. C. (2007) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1318 · Cited by 1,073
Burridge, P. W., Anderson, D., Priddle, H., Barbadillo Muñoz, M. D., Chamberlain, S., Allegrucci, C., Young, L. E., & Denning, C. (2007) · Stem Cells · doi:10.1634/stemcells.2006-0598 · Cited by 301
Self-citationHemberger, M., Udayashankar, R., Tesar, P., Moore, H., & Burton, G. J. (2010) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddq128 · Cited by 181
Li, Y., Gautam, A., Yang, J., Qiu, L., Melkoumian, Z., Weber, J., Telukuntla, L., Srivastava, R., Whiteley, E. M., & Brandenberger, R. (2013) · Stem Cells and Development · doi:10.1089/scd.2012.0508 · Cited by 47
Rebuzzini, P., Zuccotti, M., Redi, C. A., & Garagna, S. (2016) · Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences · doi:10.1007/s00018-016-2171-8 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Allegrucci, C., & Young, L. E.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction Update
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-08-26
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 103-120
- ISSN
- 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2369
- OpenAlex
- W2108080239
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Differences between human embryonic stem cell lines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humupd/dml041
- The paper
- Allegrucci, C., & Young, L. E. (2007). Differences between human embryonic stem cell lines. Human Reproduction Update. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dml041
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.
