CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74

The Role of Hypoxia in Stem Cell Potency and Differentiation

Hawkins, Kate E, Sharp, Tyson V, McKay, Tristan R·2013·Regenerative Medicine
DOI 10.2217/rme.13.71
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Regenerative medicine relies on harnessing the capacity of stem cells to grow, divide and differentiate safely and predictably. This may be in the context of expanding stem cells in vitro or encouraging their expansion, mobilization and capacity to regenerate tissues either locally or remotely in vivo. In either case, understanding the stem cell niche is fundamental to recapitulating or manipulating conditions to enable therapy. It has become obvious that hypoxia plays a fundamental role in the maintenance of the stem cell niche. Low O2 benefits the self-renewal of human embryonic, hematopoietic, mesenchymal and neural stem cells, as well as improving the efficiency of genetic reprogramming to induced pluripotency. There is emerging evidence that harnessing or manipulating the hypoxic response can result in safer, more efficacious methodologies for regenerative medicine.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2217/rme.13.71

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Low oxygen levels promote self-renewal of a number of stem cell types, increase efficiency of reprogramming to induce pluripotency, and are important for PSC fate specification.

    “In particular, they promote self-renewal of a number of stem cell types, increase efficiency of reprogramming to induce pluripotency (Hawkins et al., 2013), and have been shown to be important for PSC fate specification (Hawkins et al., 2013).”

    From Guidance document on Good cell and tissue culture practice 2.0 (GCCP 2.0) (2021) · cites this paper as Hawkins et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hawkins, K. E., Sharp, T. V., & McKay, T. R.
Affiliations
  • Division of Biomedical Sciences, St George‘s University of London
  • Bart‘s Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Venue
Regenerative Medicine
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2013-10-22
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
771-782
ISSN
  • 1746-0751
  • 1746-076X
DOI
10.2217/rme.13.71
Cited by
74
References
12
Language
en

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