ReviewJournal of anatomy2004
Strategies for identifying genes that play a role in spinal cord regeneration.
Review in Journal of anatomy, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone-nerve crosstalk: a new state for neuralizing bone tissue engineering-A mini review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- The Role of ATF3 in Neuronal Differentiation and Development of Neuronal Networks in Opossum Postnatal Cortical Cultures.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Biomarkers mining for spinal cord injury based on integrated multi-transcriptome expression profile data.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
- Establishment of Long-Term Primary Cortical Neuronal Cultures From Neonatal OpossumFrontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2021Article
- The opossum genome: insights and opportunities from an alternative mammal.Genome research · 2008Review
- Sprouting, regeneration and circuit formation in the injured spinal cord: factors and activity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2006Review
- Differential expression of genes at stages when regeneration can and cannot occur after injury to immature mammalian spinal cord.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A search for genes that promote or block CNS regeneration requires numerous approaches; for example, tests can be made on individual candidate molecules. Here, however, we describe methods for comprehensive identification of genes up- and down-regulated in neurons that can and cannot regenerate after injury. One problem concerns identification of low-abundance genes out of the 30,000 or so genes expressed by neurons. Another difficulty is knowing whether a single gene or multiple genes are necessary. When microchips and subtractive differential display are used to identify genes turned on or off, the numbers are still too great to test which molecules are actually important for regeneration. Candidates are genes coding for trophic, inhibitory, receptor and extracellular matrix molecules, as well as unknown genes. A preparation useful for narrowing the search is the neonatal opossum. The spinal cord and optic nerve can regenerate after injury at 9 days but cannot at 12 days after birth. This narrow window allows genes responsible for the turning off of regeneration to be identified. As a next step, sites at which they are expressed (forebrain, midbrain, spinal cord, neurons or glia, intracellular or extracellular) must be determined. An essential step is to characterize proteins, their levels of expression, and their importance for regeneration. Comprehensive searches for molecular mechanisms represent a lengthy series of experiments that could help in devising strategies for repairing injured spinal cord.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.