Hi, I'm the first author on the eLife paper. The 2016 paper you mentioned is basically worthless (their differentiation method doesn't make biological sense and

Hi, I'm the first author on the eLife paper. The 2016 paper you mentioned is basically worthless (their differentiation method doesn't make biological sense and didn't work when I tried it, they're only looking at a small subset of cherrypicked markers to conclude they have granulosa cells, and also, these people are from the "Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine"). We have much more functional validation of our granulosa-like cells, in terms of gene expression, hormone production, and follicle formation. A better precedent would be Yoshino 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34437124/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34437124/, which made mouse granulosa cells from mouse stem cells: