Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11604120›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2001

On the evolution of early development in the Nematoda.

B Goldstein

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 51% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Transcriptome age of individual cell types inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  3. Systematic analysis of cell morphodynamics inFrontiers in bioinformatics · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Physical constraints on early blastomere packings.PLoS computational biology · 2021
    Article
  6. Dual roles of the retinal pigment epithelium and lens in cavefish eye degeneration.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

B GoldsteinDepartment of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB3280, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The phylum Nematoda serves as an excellent model system for exploring how development evolves, using a comparative approach to developmental genetics. More than 100 laboratories are studying developmental mechanisms in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, and many of the methods that have been developed for C. elegans can be applied to other nematodes. This review summarizes what is known so far about steps in early development that have evolved in the nematodes, and proposes potential experiments that could make use of these data to further our understanding of how development evolves. The promise of such a comparative approach to developmental genetics is to fill a wide gap in our understanding of evolution--a gap spanning from mutations in developmental genes through to their phenotypic results, on which natural selection may act.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionBody PatterningAnimalsCell LineageCell PolarityEmbryonic InductionEmbryo, NonmammalianGeneticsNematoda

Identifiers

PMID11604120
PMCPMC1088533
OpenAlexW2026369061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.