| Title |
Genomic Instability of iPSCs: Challenges Towards Their Clinical Applications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-016-9680-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Masahito Yoshihara, Yoshihide Hayashizaki, Yasuhiro Murakawa |
| Abstract |
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are a type of pluripotent stem cells generated directly from mature cells through the introduction of key transcription factors. iPSCs can be propagated and differentiated into many cell types in the human body, holding enormous potential in the field of regenerative medicine. However, genomic instability of iPSCs has been reported with the advent of high-throughput technologies such as next-generation sequencing. The presence of genetic variations in iPSCs has raised serious safety concerns, hampering the advancement of iPSC-based novel therapies. Here we summarize our current knowledge on genomic instability of iPSCs, with a particular focus on types of genetic variations and their origins. Importantly, it remains elusive whether genetic variations in iPSCs can be an actual risk factor for adverse effects including malignant outgrowth. Furthermore, we discuss novel approaches to generate iPSCs with fewer genetic variations. Lastly, we outline the safety issues and monitoring strategies of iPSCs in clinical settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 367 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 367 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 71 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 54 | 15% |
| Researcher | 49 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 42 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 5% |
| Other | 36 | 10% |
| Unknown | 95 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 109 | 30% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 46 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 25 | 7% |
| Engineering | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 8% |
| Unknown | 104 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,644,491
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#19
of 1,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,095
of 346,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.