Submited on: 24 Feb 2013 04:13:24 PM GMT
Published on: 25 Feb 2013 07:30:57 AM GMT
 
Stem Cells -A Review
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 07 Jul 2016 06:35:43 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Strem Cells- A Review is very basic well known 4th class school standard topic with no claim


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No clear claim. The authors need to perform a more extensive review of the literature


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No results


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No protocol


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No methodology


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    A minimum of ten articles for each of the at atleast 15 areas need referenced for a review article. 


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    The topic is superficial in its coverage of a very broad subject.  15 topics can be searched for thorough literature review on stem cell applications before an attempt to write.


  • Other Comments:

    Classify stem cells organwise, functionwise and applicationwise to review them.

  • Competing interests:

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Sharma, Kwon. NSTI 2010 Proceedings

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Yes, on mesenchymal stem cells as osteogenic cells

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Stem Cells -A Review[Review of the article 'Stem Cells -A Review ' by P M].WebmedCentral 2016;7(7):WMCRW003291
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Stem Cells - A Review
Posted by Prof. Valentin Shichkin on 22 Apr 2013 12:59:28 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper claim is about stem cell area. This is very actual problem both in the scientific research and practical medecine.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Unfortunately, this paper does not consider any new aspects of the problem, and it is very surface.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    The cited literature generally is very old. It is not sutable for a review paper.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No. The authors have to analize the last five years literature.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Not applicable.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Not applicable.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    A lot of work should be done in order the paper could be considered as a review.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No. It is very poor paper.


  • Other Comments:

    No.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am currently working in this area.

  • How to cite:  Shichkin V . Stem Cells - A Review[Review of the article 'Stem Cells -A Review ' by P M].WebmedCentral 2016;4(4):WMCRW002697
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Stem Cells -A Review
Posted by Prof. Henry E Young on 28 Feb 2013 04:53:10 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper claims that this is a review article covering stem cells. The authors fall woefully short in reviewing this emerging field in the depth that it needs to be covered.  While my research concerns adult-derived stem cells, even I know that ESCs derived from the morula are totipotent, ELSCs derived from the inner cell mass are pluripotent, iPS cells are pluripotent (Nobel prize, 2012 and not even mentioned), amniotic stem cells are pluripotent (not mentioned) and fetal stem cells can be pluripotent or multipotent. Then there is my area of research, adult stem cells. Unfortunately, by their definitions they are lumping stem cells and progenitor cells in the same category and calling them ‘stem cells’, they are not the same. Adult stem cells contain the telomerase enzyme and have an essentially unlimited proliferation potential as long as they stay lineage uncommitted. Adult-derived stem cells can be uncommitted totipotent, pluripotent or multipotent cells. In contrast, progenitor cells do not contain the telomerase enzyme and have a defined biological clock until programmed senescence and cell death occurs. Progenitor cells are committed oligopotent, tripotent, bipotent or unipotent cells. See references below.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No. For adult stem cells: Young, Existence of reserve quiescent stem cells in adults, from amphibians to humans. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 280:71-109, 2004; Young & Black. Adult stem cells. Anat. Rec. 276A:75-102, 2004; Young et al., Adult reserve stem cells and their potential for tissue engineering. Cell Biochem Biophys, 40(1):1-80, 2004; Young et al., Clonogenic analysis reveals reserve stem cells in postnatal mammals. II. Pluripotent epiblastic-like stem cells. Anat. Rec. 277A:178-203, 2004; Vourc'h et al., Isolation and characterization of cells with neurogenic potential from adult skeletal muscle. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 317:893-901, 2004; Seruya et al., Clonal Population of adult stem cells: life span and differentiation potential. Cell Transplant 13:93-101, 2004; Young et al., Adult-derived stem cells and their potential for tissue repair and molecular medicine. J Cell Molec Med 9:753-769, 2005; Young & Black, Adult-derived stem cells. Minerva Biotechnologica 17:55-63, 2005.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No. The authors need to perform a more extensive review of the literature, in the realm of all cell types they mentioned as well as iPS cells and amniotic stem cells.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Not applicable.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Not applicable.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Not applicable.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    A thorough review of the literature needs to be undertaken. I would expect a minimum of ten articles for each of the 15 areas referenced for a review article. At most there were three articles referenced for one area and in some areas no articles were referenced at all. The paper would be significantly better if a thorough search were performed.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No. It is almost an embarrassment to the authors. The article is extremely superficial in its coverage of a very broad subject. I would seriously suggest in the future that the authors choose one of the 15 topics in their paper and perform a more thorough literature review on that topic before an attempt to write an article on that particular topic. And just write about single topics. Don’t try to condense multiple topics into a single work, unless you intend to keep each area the justice it deserves. The emerging field of stem cells is much too important for a simple gloss over of the information.


  • Other Comments:

    I take exception with their statement that “ASCs are difficult to identify and purify and when grown in culture are difficult to maintain in an undifferentiated state”. Based on my research of almost 40 years, ASCs can be identified with carcinoembryonic antigens (totipotent stem cells), stage specific embryonic antigens (pluripotent stem cells), and Thy-1/CD90 (multipotent stem cells). They are easy to purify, we have used single cell clonogenic analysis with conditioned medium. However, other methods are less time consuming, such as differential plating or differential centrifugation or magnetic bead sorting in combination with the antibodies mentioned above or flow cytometry again using the antibodies listed above. With respect to growing the cells in an undifferentiated state, that is relatively simple as long as one remembers to grow the cells in the absence of inductive factors.

    With respect to identifying the differentiation potential of the cells in question, I would suggest using unique external and/or internal markers for phenotypic expression. Identify ectodermal lineage-derived cells by utilizing antibodies or gene expression analysis for neuronal precursor cells, neuronal lineage cells, neurofilaments, tyrosine hydroxylase, dopamine, synaptic vesicles, beta-tubulin-III (neurons); glial-fibrillary acidic protein, glial cells, oligodendrocytes, astrocytes (glial cells); and keratinocytes (epidermis). For mesodermal-lineage derived cells one could use antibodies or gene expression analysis for MyoD, myogenin, sarcomeric myosin, skeletal muscle fast myosin, myosin heavy chain, myosin fast chain (skeletal muscle); smooth muscle alpha actin, calponin (smooth muscle); cardiotin (cardiac muscle); bone sialoprotein II, osteopontine, and von Kossa a histochemical stain for divalent cations with EGTA as a specific calcium chelator (bone); type-II collagen, type-IX collagen, histochemical staining for keratan sulfate, cartilage link protein, aggrecan (cartilage); histochemical stains for lipids – Sudan Black-B and Oil Red-O (adipocytes); PECAM, endothelial cell surface markers, VCAM, E-selectin, CD146 (endothelial cells); CD4, CD8, CD11b, CD34, CD45, CD63 (hematopoietic cells); and fibroblast-specific protein (fibroblasts). And for endoderm lineage-derived cells one could identify them with antibodies or gene expression analysis for alpha fetoprotein, oval cells, liver progenitor cells, epithelial maker of hepatocytes, canalicular cells (liver); gastrointestinal epithelia (GI enterocytes); glucagon-secreting cells, insulin secreting cells, pancreatic ductal cells (pancreas).

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Young et al., Adult reserve stem cells and their potential for tissue engineering. Cell Biochem Biophys, 40(1):1-80, 2004; Young et al., Adult-derived stem cells and their potential for tissue repair and molecular medicine. J Cell Molec Med 9:753-769, 2005; Young & Black, Adult-derived stem cells. Minerva Biotechnologica 17:55-63, 2005. (Note the dates – 7-8 years ago and still more advanced than this review article.)

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Young H E.Stem Cells -A Review[Review of the article 'Stem Cells -A Review ' by P M].WebmedCentral 2016;4(2):WMCRW002550
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse