ReviewAging cell2025
Organ-Specific Dedifferentiation and Epigenetic Remodeling in In Vivo Reprogramming.
Review in Aging cell, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing Endogenous Plasticity Rather than Reprogramming of Mature Cells Will Advance Regenerative Medicine, Cancer Treatment and Rejuvenation.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Geroprotective Effects of Drugs Modulating Metabolic Pathways: Perspectives of Pharmacology in Anti-Aging Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Oxidative stress drives liver failure during in vivo partial reprogramming.Molecules and cells · 2026Article
- Biological aging clocks in health and disease.Nature medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The advent of in vivo reprogramming through transient expression of the Yamanaka factors (OCT4, SOX2, KLF4, and c-MYC) holds strong promise for regenerative medicine, despite ongoing concerns about safety and clinical applicability. This review synthesizes recent advances in in vivo reprogramming, focusing on its potential to restore regenerative competence and promote rejuvenation across diverse tissues, including the retina, skeletal muscle, heart, liver, brain, and intestine. We highlight mechanistic parallels and distinctions between injury-induced dedifferentiation and OSKM-mediated reprogramming, emphasizing the roles of dedifferentiation, transient regenerative progenitors, and epigenetic remodeling. Critical safety considerations-such as teratoma formation, organ failure, and loss of cell identity-are discussed alongside strategies designed to mitigate these risks, like cyclic induction and targeted delivery. Finally, we briefly note the growing translational interest in this field, alongside directing readers to recent reviews for detailed coverage of biotech initiatives. Collectively, this work underscores the transformative potential of in vivo reprogramming for both tissue regeneration and rejuvenation, while stressing the importance of precise spatiotemporal control for its safe clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.