Cited by 31Research Data Management PracticesPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchScientific Computing and Data Management

First proposal of minimum information about a cellular assay for regenerative medicine

Open access
Sakurai, Kunie, Kurtz, Andreas, Stacey, Glyn, Sheldon, Michael, Fujibuchi, Wataru·2016·Stem Cells Translational Medicine

Abstract

Advances in stem cell research have triggered scores of studies in regenerative medicine in a large number of institutions and companies around the world. However, reproducibility and data exchange among laboratories or cell banks are constrained by the lack of a standardized format for experiments. To enhance information flow in stem cell and derivative cell research, here we propose a minimum information standard to describe cellular assay data to facilitate practical regenerative medicine. Based on the existing Minimum Information About a Cellular Assay, we developed Minimum Information About a Cellular Assay for Regenerative Medicine (MIACARM), which allows for the description of advanced cellular experiments with defined taxonomy of human cell types. By using controlled terms, such as ontologies, MIACARM will provide a platform for cellular assay data exchange among cell banks or registries that have been established at more than 20 sites in the world. Significance: Currently, there are more than 20 human cell information storage sites around the world. However, reproducibility and data exchange among different laboratories or cell information providers are usually inadequate or nonexistent because of the lack of a standardized format for experiments. This study, which is the fruit of collaborative work by scientists at stem cell banks and cellular information registries worldwide, including those in the U.S., the U.K., Europe, and Japan, proposes new minimum information guidelines, Minimum Information About a Cellular Assay for Regenerative Medicine (MIACARM), for cellular assay data deposition. MIACARM is intended to promote data exchange and facilitation of practical regenerative medicine.

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 · 10.5966/sctm.2015-0393

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • MIACA and MIACARE checklists help standardize field names and establish controlled vocabularies for species, tissue of origin, culture medium, and STR kit version.

    “The Minimum Information About a Cellular Assay (MIACA) and the Minimum Information About a Cellular Assay in Regenerative Medicine (MIACARE) checklists help to standardize field names (e.g., “passage_number” vs. “passageNo”) and establish controlled vocabularies for species, tissue of origin, culture medium, and STR kit version [113,114].”

    From Genetic Insights into the Economic Toll of Cell Line Misidentification: A Comprehensive Review (2026) · cites this paper as [114]

    The Introduction and Materials and Methods (Ontology Assignment; page numbers unavailable) support the general point that these reporting guidelines standardize assay information and that controlled terms were assigned to the regenerative-medicine checklist. But the paper calls that checklist MIACARM, not MIACARE, and does not establish the claimed field-name example or controlled vocabularies for each listed field, including STR kit version. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [36]U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. PubMed/MEDLINE. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. Accessed October 15, 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sakurai, K., Kurtz, A., Stacey, G., Sheldon, M., & Fujibuchi, W.
Affiliations
  • Kyoto University (JP)
  • Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies, Berlin, Germany
  • Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (GB)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Fujibuchi, Wataru
Venue
Stem Cells Translational Medicine
Published
2016-07-12
Volume
5
Issue
10
Pages
1345-1361
ISSN
  • 2157-6564 (ISSN-L)
  • 2157-6580
OpenAlex
W2475159815
Cited by
31
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Stem Cells Translational Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
  • Kyoto University Research Information Repository (Kyoto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (5U24MH068457-13)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (1U24NS095914-01)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Pluripotent Stem Cells Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
Keywords
data standardization, data exchange, reproducibility, stem cell banks, controlled vocabulary, ontology (information science), human cell types, regenerative medicine, data deposition
MeSH terms
Humans, Registries, Stem Cells, Tissue Banks, Regenerative Medicine, Stem Cell Research

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