This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: MCB This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance). Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

i drew organ regeneration image and upload to commons [1].if it is efficient for this article,please use it. Clearly kefir ( talk) 17:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think it works that way. 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear all,

Hey, I'm RR -- I was the first editor of the article (1st edit -- w00t! :P) and would love to work together with other editors to collaboratively clean this thing up. I recently just added a new section confirming the similarities of iPSCs and hESCs below the section where generation of iPS cells are documented -- thoughts on it? It's a bit hasty and is a bit too introductory, so I'd love to work with y'all to fix it.

Regards,

RelentlessRecusant ^{[ iTalk § iWork} 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you please remove the quote from the times where the collaboration to create iPS cells without viral vectors is announced. This section is relatively useless, and adds nothing to the discussion, especially since ref 14 is an article published by Shinya Yamanaka in which he describes how he already succeeded in creating iPS cells without viral vectors, one year prior to the announcement of this collaboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.22.99 ( talk) 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• I donno if someone answer this or if it fixed by now, but I found this artcile much better than most. I clicked discussion to see why this aricle was written with lots of information to the point: I get so frustrated with some articles with the wrong priorities (rRNA talking about where on the human chromosomes rRNA genes are found but not the function of rRNA and only last week I split hox genes from homeobox genes...) so I am just writing to say congratulations on being first author and thanks for writing up part of this good article. -- Squidonius ( talk) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Just want to say thanks for all of the authors & editors on this page. It has been very helpful to my work.-- talk 23 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CandaceID ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Is the process of the skin cells being coaxed into becoming Stem cells considered dedifferentiation? Should the dedifferentiation article be in a "See also" section here? AkashAD ( talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think so. I work on a science news website and I don't recall ever hearing that term. The word "regress" comes to mind, but the word "reprogram" is more common. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 13:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Some might consider it dedifferentiation, however, the science isn't really at the point where one could call it a true dedifferentiation, as the behavior of the cells is still being very actively investigated, and is in general still poorly defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.22.99 ( talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a quick question / food for thought. If IPS cells were implanted into a womb, is there ANY chance at all that they would grow into a viable embryo? I've yet to see this question addressed, and I think it's a big question - or at least could potentially be. Athenon ( talk) 23:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I sincerely doubt it would turn into an embryo, since there wouldn't be both sets of DNA. They could possibly become an egg, though they likely would just turn into the cells of the uterine wall. Just my random thought on the subject. Silver seren ^C 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The comment above makes no sense at all scientifically. An embryo has a single diploid DNA genome, which iPS cells also have. Furthermore, there has been (at least as far as I know) no one who has successfully been able to produce germ cells from iPS cells.

Third, iPS cells are simply normal cells, implanting them into a womb would most probably result in death. Not to mention, SCNT is a much better method for cloning where implantation into a womb is desired. The best you might be able to do would be to create a iPS cell, and use that nucleus for SCNT, hoping that the efficiency of the method would be increased due to the cell type not being as differentiated as the cell from which the iPS cell was derived. This is, however, a purely hypothetical possibility, and no one in the world is likely to be working on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.22.99 ( talk) 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

When iPS cells are being generated from mice, the development of an embryo is sometimes a criterion for the production of viable iPS cells. So to answer your question, yes this could produce a viable embryo. You would just need to add a placenta, as iPS cells cannot product this. This article is pretty good: http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2009/0908/090806/full/stemcells.2009.106.html afireinside13t ( talk) 22:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I highly doubt they could form an embryo, much less a viable one, because, as the name suggests, iPS cells are only pluripotent (as opposed to a totipotent zygote), and could therefore not differentiate to form crucial extraembryonic tissue such as the placenta and umbilical cord. 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 17:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

In mice they have been shown to be able to create full-fledged embryos: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672241 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraploid_complementation_assay By the way, and, on another line of discussion: IMO the article should mention the ongoing investigation on the efficiency of the reprogramming (it has been shown that the ability to proliferate and differenciate varies even with cells produced from the same source and with the same methods. There's a lot of interest in which methods are able to produce better lines, and how to tell the "good" ones from the "bad" ones. 79.157.90.3 ( talk) 03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

This section is really beyond my understanding...what kind of "expression" is meant? Just the demethylation was tricky enough to figure out, and that's just a small fraction of it all...could someone who gets this completely try to write it in a more non-scientist way, still covering what it means? Hannes, 83.255.66.207 ( talk) 12:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I tried to edit the incomplete reprogramming section based on recent research (from 2011-2013), as well as the epigenetic programming section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.126.65 ( talk) 21:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk) 20:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I was surprised to find a whole section about this recent paper from Nature Methods and don't think this discovery is of enough importance to receive that much space in an article about the whole iPS field. Especially "yet another major leap was made" seems fairly exaggerated because a) Even before this study several cell types that are accessible with absolutely minimal invasive measures (like keratinocytes from plucked hair or epithelial cells from nasal smear) have been reprogrammed. b) The amount of cells that can be isolated from the primary urine is so less that, while certainly being a nice gimmick, the clinical relevance is at least arguable.

I, too, want to note that this paper is unreasonably highlighted in the article about induced stem cells which gives the whole matter a strange taste of someone trying to promote his own paper. :-/

The most frequently used source for reprogramming are blood cells ^{[1] [2]}. ^{[3] [4]} and fibroblasts, obtained by biopsy of the skin, but more convenient to receive the body cells from the urine. ^{[5] [6]} This method does not require a biopsy or blood sampling and therefore harmless to the patient.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.161.139 ( talk) 15:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree that this section is over-weighted and the wordings are not neutral, more like propaganda, peacock language, WP:NPOV. Some other sections in the article also have the similar problem (although not as exaggerated as this section). I will work to clean it up. Ginger Maine Coon ( talk) 21:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

The section has no merit to be in this article. It only states the unknown outcome of 'banking' the iPS cells while does not reference any study (successful or otherwise), other than some private company trying to take advantage of an early stage science. This section should be removed until credible research and report are available regarding storage of iPS cells. I will remove this section in two weeks if no objection. Ginger Maine Coon ( talk) 21:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Just a quick note to bring the page Induced stem cells to the attention of anyone who may be watching. There's a lot of well-cited content, but a lot is also duplicated with this page and it's almost entirely the work of one editor (under two usernames). I'm a bit skeptical - it sounds like a legitimate concept (it purports to describe the induction of stem cells of all potencies, not just pluripotency) but I've never heard it used before. A quick Google search seems to show the term "induced stem cell" being used synonymously with iPSCs, and I don't see anything obvious in Pubmed either. At the least there should be some stylistic improvements. :-) Arc de Ciel ( talk) 06:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC) reply

should this be added to this article? or become its own article ? EdwardLane ( talk) 03:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC) reply

A stub been created at Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency cell. ben moore 14:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC) reply

ah yes, cool, thanks EdwardLane ( talk) 11:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to step in on anyone's domain and edit it myself, but I'm working in the field of regenerative medicine, and the debate over equivalency of iPSCs and ESCs is 100% NOT over, as the experiments using MEFs purposely used Embryonic Fibroblasts because the researchers knew it would not work with somatic cells. It is an often-embraced misconception that these iPSCs are completely plastic, while they are very far from it, and any iPSC obtained from viable sources (embryos are not viable for many reasons, ethical and autologous) which would have to be an ADULT somatic cell retains much of its identity, even after induction using Yamanaka's technique. For emphasis, specific experimental evidence on the non-equivalency of ESCs = MEFs = MSFs would be the fact that MEFs STILL have markers associated with ESCs, that are quickly lost in the early stages of embryogenisis. This is a clear indicator of the non-differentiation of MEFs, and that they have little character to even lose through iP, and have little way to go to recapture their pluripotent potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstonefreedom ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC) reply

To add to the above comment, many cell lines have to be optimized for differentiation into certain cell types. One iPSC line can have a very low differentiation efficiency while a similar, but different, line has a very high efficiency. As mentioned beforehand, this seems to be in part due to epigenetic regulation. Biophysics Editor ( talk) 23:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Please don't continue offering general opinions on the topic on this page. This page is not a forum for general discussion. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG. Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 01:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The naked mole-rat exhibits extraordinary resistance to cancer. Miyawaki et al., find that iPSCs of naked mole-rat do not exhibit teratoma-forming tumorigenicity due to the species-specific activation of tumour-suppressor alternative reading frame ( ARF) and a disruption mutation of the oncogene ES cell-expressed an analog of Ras (ERAS) ^[1]. Unfortunately, reviews on this subject yet unavailable

- Dmitry Dzhagarov ( talk) 16:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

User:PFHLai this edit is promotional for Scripps and is sourced from a primary scientific source. Please use reviews per [{WP:SCIRS]]. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 10:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I've made some changes to a few sections but I'm not well-versed in this field. I've a few suggestions to improve the encyclopaedic tone of the article:

• Reduce the "XYZ et al discovered in 2009 that..." phrasing to merely summarise the findings. Similarly, when two groups disagree, the authors don't need to be mentioned. The in-line references at the end of the sentences indicate it for interested parties. The key is to emphasise the conclusions, rather than the authors/institutes.
• The "Production" section should be split into "History" and "Production", so that the "History" section can have all the significant dates and people. The rest of the article should then focus solely on the science.
• Bullet-pointed sections such as "Safety" could easily be reformatted in prose.

If there are important reviews, they can be used as references for the general statements at the start of the article. Sentences such as "XYZ published an review of topic ABC" aren't really necessary. Sorry to just dump suggestions without implementing them, but hopefully this diff shows a bit of what I mean! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) ^talk 03:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

This is all based on primary sources and news reports, and contains WP:OR

• The first published report of a person treated for macular degeneration with a cell-sheet derived from iPSCs was reported in 2017 in the New England Journal Of Medicine ^[1]. That publication and other research was reviewed independently in Science, which pointed out that the procedure was at least safe. ^[2]. That report was in contrast to another report in the same issue of NEJM that described vision loss in 3 patients injected with fat-derived cells at a stem cell clinic. ^[3] The same issue of NEJM published a perspective about the benefits and risks of stem cell therapy. ^[4]

The part about "That report was in contrast to another report in the same issue of NEJM that described vision loss in 3 patients injected with fat-derived cells at a stem cell clinic." is 100% WP:SYN - you cannot do that in Wikipedia. This is not a blog with your name at the top - there can be nothing that comes out of your brain. Everything must come from sources that you are summarizing. Jytdog ( talk) 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Jytdog:In response to your comment on the edit: I did this because I heard on our local TV news that (and I believe this is an exact quote) "an experiment went horribly wrong and left 3 people blinded." If not exact, it's damn close. So, I looked it up, being unable to believe that someone did an expeiment that left 3 people blind in both eyes. I found the truth, which is that it was not an experiment. And then, I looked at the latest science and found that the there was a brief independent review of the iPSC treatment of AMD and other work. So, I cited the Science review (secondary source) and the original NEJM primary source. Since there was an excellent paper (not original research) in the same issue of NEJM pertinent to the section of the wp article, I cited that. I will let the removal of the adipose derived "stem cell" injections remain out, since if anybody is silly enough to pay for that sort of procedure, let them (and who knows wtf the clinic injected). So, I have a secondary source and 2 primary sources from one of the MEDRS journals. I am reinstating them. If you delete it again, this will be our ani. DennisPietras ( talk) 02:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The thing in Science is not a MEDRS source - it is in the News section of the magazine, for pete's sake. This is dead on biomedical content and needs MEDRS sources. Thanks for removing the OR at least in the 2nd iteration. Your refusing to use the pmid parameter is hard to reckon. Jytdog ( talk) 03:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ DennisPietras: Like seemingly everyone else, I read that NEJM paper about the blinded stem-cell patients with jaw on the floor at what was done to them, so the post about this on ANI caught my eye (groan...) The problem with the proposed edit is that it places undue weight on these very recent developments. If you want to cover research on stem cells in medicine, stem-cell therapy seems like the place to do it, though not with this text - incidentally, that article is pretty bad in part because of the " dated recentism" that comes from documenting individual trials and papers as they come out and then failing to update the article with results, follow-up reports, and reviews. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 03:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Should the induced Neural Plate Border Stem Cells made eg by Trumpp etc [2] be covered in this article (or induced stem cells) ? - Rod57 ( talk) 13:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC) reply

While on some level it seems relevant to mention that patient-matched stem cells can be made for both ESCs and iPSCs, the throwaway sentence in the intro just feels out-of-place. (It also doesn't have a citation, and it's never mentioned in the article that SCNT stands for somatic cell nuclear transfer...) Since there's already a discussion about ESCs vs iPSCs linked at the bottom of the article, my suggestion is just to remove this sentence altogether. Tinybike ( talk) 21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply