Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33417869›Full record

ReviewCell stem cell2021

Computational Stem Cell Biology: Open Questions and Guiding Principles.

Patrick Cahan, Davide Cacchiarelli, Sara-Jane Dunn, Martin Hemberg, Susana M Chuva de Sousa Lopes, Samantha A Morris, Owen J L Rackham, Antonio Del Sol, Christine A Wells

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cell stem cell, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Patrick CahanInstitute for Cell Engineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Electronic address: patrick.cahan@jhmi.edu.
Davide CacchiarelliTelethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine (TIGEM), Armenise/Harvard Laboratory of Integrative Genomics, Pozzuoli, Italy d Department of Translational Medicine, University of Naples "Federico II," Naples, Italy.
Sara-Jane DunnDeepMind, 14-18 Handyside Street, London N1C 4DN, UK; Wellcome-MRC Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Jeffrey Cheah Biomedical Centre, Puddicombe Way, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0AW, UK.
Martin HembergWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton CB10 1SA, UK.
Susana M Chuva de Sousa LopesDepartment Anatomy and Embryology, Leiden University Medical Center, Einthovenweg 20, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Samantha A MorrisDepartment of Developmental Biology, Department of Genetics, Center of Regenerative Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Owen J L RackhamCentre for Computational Biology and The Program for Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disorders, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Antonio Del SolLuxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine (LCSB), University of Luxembourg, 6 Avenue du Swing, Belvaux 4366, Luxembourg; CIC bioGUNE, Bizkaia Technology Park, 801 Building, 48160 Derio, Spain; IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao 48013, Spain.
Christine A WellsCentre for Stem Cell Systems, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.

Funding

From intra to intercellular regulatory networks that define cell type identityR35GM124725 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Patrick Cahan · 2017 to 2026
$4.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM124725
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational biology is enabling an explosive growth in our understanding of stem cells and our ability to use them for disease modeling, regenerative medicine, and drug discovery. We discuss four topics that exemplify applications of computation to stem cell biology: cell typing, lineage tracing, trajectory inference, and regulatory networks. We use these examples to articulate principles that have guided computational biology broadly and call for renewed attention to these principles as computation becomes increasingly important in stem cell biology. We also discuss important challenges for this field with the hope that it will inspire more to join this exciting area.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyStem CellsDrug DiscoveryRegenerative Medicine

Identifiers

PMID33417869
PMCPMC7799393

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.