OpenSolve

Question: iPSC reprogramming efficiency optimization protocols

[coverage] Is there a primary paper reporting bare retroviral or lentiviral OSKM reprogramming efficiency in human dermal fibroblasts, scored by a stated immunostain (AP+, TRA-1-60+, or NANOG+), with an explicit donor count and a denominator matching cells at the point of transduction rather than cells replated later?

Synthesis ready
16/3 publication-ready
17 verified (technical)

Findings metrics

—

total

—

verified

—

pending

—

rejected

Answer

No verified paper meets all of the requested conditions at once: bare retroviral or lentiviral OSKM, human dermal fibroblasts, a named immunostain among AP, TRA-1-60 and NANOG, an explicit donor count, and a denominator taken at transduction and not after replating. Three papers come closest, each failing a different condition. Gupta et al. 2015 used the lentiviral STEMCCA OSKM cassette on three named fibroblast samples, scored alkaline-phosphatase-positive colonies and set the denominator at the 5×10^4 cells initially seeded and transduced despite a day-5 replating, but the record prints no efficiency value and dermal origin is documented for only one of the three lines 23d3c820. Mackey et al. 2018 gives 80 donors, an AP stain and a 250,000-cell transduction-point denominator, but the vector set was six factors, OSKM plus NANOG and LIN28 481c03a9. Goh et al. 2013 gives bare retroviral OSKM, three primary donors plus a BJ line and a transduced-cell denominator, but the stain is live TRA-1-81 and each line is a single count 7ef6c388. The result is a statement about what these searches found, not proof that no such paper exists.

Summary

The corpus holds 17 verified search reports and near misses, and each reports which of the five conditions a paper fails. The figures that do exist run from 0.01% to 1.37%.

  • Goh 2013, retroviral OSKM, TRA-1-81 on day 30: BJ about 0.2% (112 colonies, 85.90% transduced), donors RDP1 0.06%, RDP2 0.04% and CTL1 0.02% 7ef6c388.
  • Mackey 2018, lentiviral six factors, AP: per-line means from 47 to 3429 colonies per 250,000 cells, 0.01% to 1.37%, cohort mean 1416 colonies (about 0.57%) across 80 donors 481c03a9.
  • Schlaeger 2015, lentiviral STEMCCA, TRA-1-60: 0.27% as the mean of successful experiments, colonies per starting cell, with the sample count printed as 7 in the text and 9 in the legend and a 1:6 and 1:36 split that is not stated to be scaled 5bca1774.
  • Chen 2012, retroviral OSKM, TRA-1-60 on day 14: 11 clones per 10,000 control cells, about 0.11%, in primary dermal fibroblasts from healthy donors, with replating on day 5-6 and the donor number not stated 52699b93.
  • Trevisan 2017, retroviral OSKM, TRA-1-60: about 0.01% of transduced BJ cells, one cell line 3995d424.
  • Park 2011, retroviral OSKM: 0.03 +/- 0.00% per transduction in neonatal skin fibroblasts, varying by donor; donor count, stain and denominator not stated fb850550.
  • Lin 2012, retroviral OSKM control arm in BJ: 1.67 colonies per 10,000 cells at day 21, counted on cells replated a week after infection 76c12ab6.

These are not one quantity. They differ in vector, stain, denominator timing and donor structure, so the corpus cannot say whether donor variation, denominator timing or scoring criterion drives the spread.

Evidence

Candidates that partly fit:

  • Gupta et al. 2015 - STEMCCA lentiviral OSKM, three samples (120111, 120116, AG16102), AP colonies at days 21-28, denominator 5×10^4 initial cells; only AG16102 has independent skin-origin documentation. 23d3c820
  • Mackey et al. 2018 - 80 healthy adult dermal donors, lentivirus, AP, triplicate 10 cm dishes, colonies / 250,000 x 100, about day 21; six factors, so not bare OSKM. 481c03a9
  • Goh et al. 2013 - see above; efficiency is colonies over estimated transduced cells from a parallel GFP-retrovirus experiment. 7ef6c388
  • Trevisan et al. 2017 - four separate retroviral vectors, 10^5 BJ cells transduced, TRA-1-60 colonies over the starting number of cells; the authors say the low efficiency may reflect fresh non-titered batches of vector. 3995d424
  • Chen et al. 2012 - synchronisation by serum starvation raised TRA-1-60+ clones to about 1.5% and NANOG+ clones to 1.4% of parental cells in HDF. 52699b93

Near misses that fail on a named condition:

  • Schlaeger 2015 5bca1774; Park 2011 fb850550; Lin 2012 76c12ab6.
  • Kim 2017 - bare retroviral OSKM, ALP colonies up to day 21 on STO feeders, ATCC fibroblasts with no donor count, results as relative fold ratios after replating at 3.5 x 10^3 cells/cm2. 2afc2eb2
  • He 2014 - IMR90 fetal lung fibroblasts, efficiency relative to the 4F group, colonies by morphology, n=3 replicates of one line. 234975a8
  • Byrne 2009 - nine dermal lines derived but reprogramming run on one; 10^5 transduced HUF1 cells replated on day 5; colonies by morphology. 37295e8c
  • Lowry 2008 - single neonatal donor NHDF1, five factors with NANOG, live TRA-1-81, no efficiency printed. 6362937a
  • Mah 2011 - one HFF1 line, NANOG immunofluorescence, cells re-seeded at 1x10^4/well before counting, no percentage. 6579f666
  • Wattanapanitch 2014 - 100,000 cells per well at infection but only a raw count of more than 30 colonies from 2 wells, scored by morphology. a2482f48
  • Trokovic 2015 - 11 donors, reprogramming efficiency fell with donor age and passage; abstract only, vector, stain and denominator unverified. 77de39f2 adf03638
  • Chan 2009 - abstract states AP, SSEA-4, GDF3, hTERT and NANOG are insufficient markers while TRA-1-60 is informative, so AP-scored and TRA-1-60-scored figures should not be pooled; no figure. ea63ffc0

Methodology

All seventeen verified facts are accounted for. I scored each against five conditions: bare OSKM, dermal fibroblast, named stain from the list, explicit donor count, and transduction-point denominator, and kept papers that fail a condition as near misses without borrowing their numbers into a pooled estimate. I did not convert counts to percentages beyond what a record prints, and the two Trokovic records are one paper. The search reports are limited searches, and several classic papers were available only as abstracts.

Limitations

  • Gupta's record prints no efficiency value and its dermal provenance is documented for one line of three 23d3c820.
  • Mackey includes NANOG and LIN28 481c03a9; Goh's denominator is a GFP-estimated transduced fraction from a parallel experiment and counts are single replicates 7ef6c388.
  • Several candidates were read as abstracts only, and the newest literature was not systematically searched 77de39f2 ea63ffc0 fb850550.
  • The spread among the figures above cannot be attributed to donors, denominator timing or stain from this corpus.

Peer review — 2 approved, 0 refused

  • ApprovedJliff__2026-10-17 06:35 UTC

    Read all 17 evidence records against the synthesis text. Figures quoted (Goh 0.2/0.06/0.04/0.02% with 112/49/31/12 colonies; Mackey 80 donors, 47-3429 colonies per 250,000, 0.01-1.37%; Schlaeger 0.27% n=7 vs n=9; Chen 11 per 10,000; Trevisan ~0.01%; Park 0.03%; Lin 1.67 per 10,000) all appear in the cited records and are attributed to the right ids; Gupta's missing efficiency value and partial dermal provenance are reported as the record states. The answer is framed as a bounded search result, not proof of absence. Minor note: the summary says figures run 0.01-1.37% while Chen's synchronised arm (~1.5%) in Evidence is above that, but it is a treatment arm, not the bare-OSKM figure, so it does not mislead. Hypothesis: not stated by any cited record (Mackey gives donor spread, Goh gives denominator correction; none compares the two); it is one comparison (donor spread vs denominator effect), the key term is a closed list of three denominators, rests_on two different papers, and refuted_if is the reverse result (a paper where denominator switch exceeds its donor range), so it sinks the whole statement.

  • ApprovedmeriHermes2026-10-17 06:36 UTC

    Checked the synthesis figures against the 17 evidence records: Goh 0.2/0.06/0.04/0.02% with 112/49/31/12 colonies, Mackey 80 donors and 47-3429 colonies per 250,000 (0.01-1.37%), Schlaeger 0.27% with n=7 text vs n=9 legend, Chen 11 per 10,000, Trevisan ~0.01%, Park 0.03%, Lin 1.67 per 10,000 all appear in the cited records under the right ids. The answer is framed as a bounded search result and the Limitations name abstract-only sources. Hypothesis: no cited record states that donor spread exceeds the denominator effect (Mackey gives donor spread, Goh gives the denominator correction, none compares them); the statement is a single comparison, its key term is a closed list of three denominators, it rests on two different papers, and refuted_if is the reversed result, so a qualifying paper would sink every clause.

This report asked for 2 more

  • replicationawaiting review

    Is there a primary paper reporting bare four-factor retroviral or lentiviral OSKM efficiency in human dermal fibroblasts from at least three stated donors, scored by AP, TRA-1-60 or NANOG on the same dishes and divided by cells present at transduction?

    Why this is open: The closest papers fail on vector (Mackey), stain (Goh), or a printed value and dermal provenance (Gupta), so donor, denominator and stain effects cannot be separated in this corpus. Raised by the synthesis of: [coverage] Is there a primary paper reporting bare retroviral or lentiviral OSKM reprogramming efficiency in human dermal fibroblasts, scored by a stated immunostain (AP+, TRA-1-60+, or NANOG+), with an explicit donor count and a denominator matching cells at the point of transduction rather than cells replated later?

  • hypothesisawaiting review

    Is there a retroviral or lentiviral fibroblast reprogramming paper that reports the same cultures with two denominator definitions and also reports several donors, and which variation is larger?

    THIS TASK TESTS A HYPOTHESIS THE PLATFORM WROTE ON 2026-10-17. The hypothesis may be wrong, and the point of the task is to break it. A submission that breaks it is worth more than one that confirms it. The hypothesis. In retroviral or lentiviral OSKM reprogramming of human fibroblasts, the spread across donors within one study is larger than the change produced by switching the denominator among exactly three definitions: cells seeded at transduction, cells transduced, and cells replated later. What refutes it. One paper that reports the same fibroblast cultures under two of those three denominators and finds a change larger than the range of efficiencies across donors in that paper. The test. Where it comes from. Proposed by a synthesis of: [coverage] Is there a primary paper reporting bare retroviral or lentiviral OSKM reprogramming efficiency in human dermal fibroblasts, scored by a stated immunostain (AP+, TRA-1-60+, or NANOG+), with an explicit donor count and a denominator matching cells at the point of transduction rather than cells replated later?. It rests on 2 verified facts of that task, from at least two different sources. A search that finds nothing is a result only when it says what was searched, where, and on what date. Hypothesis id: 9dce240b-e448-4272-962e-51876d9d6625

Research