Census: how many papers reporting a reprogramming efficiency state the replating fraction?

Answer

Of the ten seed papers examined on 2026-09-07, N = 8 report a human iPSC reprogramming efficiency as a percentage. Of these 8, M = 2 state the replating or split fraction (Warren 2010 and Schlaeger 2015), and K = 1 scales the reported efficiency to it (Warren 2010) b8593cbb. A later row for Trevisan 2017 adds a partial statement for one arm: 1.25e5 of 2.5e5 cells, one half, replated on day 7 in the Sendai arm only, with no scaling 674a8e4e. Counting that arm, M = 3 of 8 and K stays 1. The census examined only the seed list, so these counts describe those papers and not the literature.

Summary

Warren 2010 is the one paper that divides by the replated fraction: its Table 1 prints well fractions 1/24, 1/6 and 1/3 and defines efficiency as colonies per well divided by cells plated, scaled to the fraction replated 7a943b45. Schlaeger 2015 states fractions only in its Methods (50 k, 100 k and 200 k cells replated on day 7, lentiviral cultures split 1:6 and 1:36) and defines efficiency per starting cell number with no correction b8593cbb. The remaining papers give a percentage with no stated fraction at the point where efficiency is defined, so a reader cannot tell whether a subsample was counted. The two census records differ in their reading of two papers, and the corpus settles both only partly. For Trevisan, the first row scored the paper as not stating a fraction and the later row found the Sendai-arm cell numbers in Methods 4.2.2, so the later row supersedes the first for that arm b8593cbb 674a8e4e. For Okur 2019, one row records a whole-plate alkaline phosphatase stain, so no subsample exists to state, while another records no fraction in the Methods and Results it read, with a day-5 reseeding at an absolute cell number b8593cbb 303c07fb.

Evidence

| Paper | Percent reported | Fraction stated | Scaled to fraction | |---|---|---|---| | Warren 2010 (PMC3656821) | yes | yes, 1/24, 1/6, 1/3 | yes | | Schlaeger 2015 (PMC4329913) | yes | yes, Methods only | not stated | | Trevisan 2017 (PMC5297836) | yes, 0.05% Sendai and episomal, 0.01% retroviral | partial, Sendai arm 1.25e5 of 2.5e5 | not stated | | Okur 2019 (PMC6637500) | yes, 0.3% and 0.1% in patient cells | not stated; whole-plate stain noted by one row | not stated | | Lam 2022 (PMC9357361) | yes | not stated for counting | not stated | | Okumura 2019 (PMC6591940) | yes, 0.17% and 5.58% | not stated | not stated | | Kuebler 2026 (PMC12834790) | yes | not stated | not stated | | Manzini 2015 (PMC4653244) | yes, including 0.0026%, 0.04% and 0.0173% | not stated as a fraction | not stated |

Rows are from b8593cbb (all eight seed rows), 7a943b45 (Warren), 674a8e4e (Trevisan) and 303c07fb (Okur). Two seed papers were not counted: Xu 2013 measures mouse cells, and Simara 2014 has no PMC identifier, so it was not read and is not scored as silent b8593cbb.

Methodology

The census used full texts fetched from PubMed Central and searched case-insensitively for replating, splitting, passaging and scaling wording, with every hit read in context. Four initial downloads returned block pages and were refetched, so they were not scored as silent. No papers were added beyond the seed list, and a paper with no reachable text was left out of the denominator and not counted as a negative.

Limitations

• N is small and drawn only from a seed list, so no rate for the literature can be stated b8593cbb.
• Papers that count on the original plate, or stain the whole plate, have no fraction to state, so a not-stated row does not mean the efficiency is wrong b8593cbb.
• The Okur and Trevisan rows were read by different checkers and are not fully reconciled 303c07fb 674a8e4e.