Stem Cell Fate Decision Making: Modeling Approaches.
Spector AA., Grayson WL.
Laboratory Study, published in ACS Biomater Sci Eng (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- ACS Biomater Sci Eng (2017)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 33418697
- DOI
- 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00606
Abstract (original English)
Mathematical (computational) modeling approaches can be effective tools in providing insight into cell-fate decisions. In this article, several major approaches to the modeling of embryonic, hematopoietic, adipose-derived, cancer, and neural stem cell differentiation are discussed. First, the population dynamics approach is considered. The models described as bifurcating dynamical systems that result in bistability or periodic oscillations are then discussed. Also, spatiotemporal models of cell differentiation, including continuum and discrete (agent- and rule-based) approaches, are reviewed. Further, the effects of the mechanical factors are discussed, including the convergence of the differentiation and mechanotransducton pathways and computational analysis of the extracellular matrix (surrounding tissue). Finally, the stochastic models that take into account the molecular noise of internal and external origins are reviewed. The effectiveness of the modeling in the creation of the improved differentiation platforms, elucidation of various pathological conditions, and analysis of treatment regiments has been demonstrated.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.