Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17005015›Full record

ReviewJournal of anatomy2006

Regeneration, tissue injury and the immune response.

James W Godwin, Jeremy P Brockes

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anatomy, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Integrative biology of injury in animals.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2023
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Immune cells in lens injury repair and fibrosis.Experimental eye research · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James W GodwinDepartment of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, University College London, UK.
Jeremy P Brockes
University College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G9537983
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The involvement of the immune system in the response to tissue injury has raised the possibility that it might influence tissue, organ or appendage regeneration following injury. One hypothesis that has been discussed is that inflammatory aspects may preclude the occurrence of regeneration, but there is also evidence for more positive roles of immune components. The vertebrate eye is an immunoprivileged site where inflammatory aspects are inhibited by several immunomodulatory mechanisms. In various newt species the ocular tissues such as the lens are regenerative and it has recently been shown that the response to local injury of the lens involves activation of antigen-presenting cells which traffic to the spleen and return to displace and engulf the lens, thereby inducing regeneration from the dorsal iris. The activation of thrombin from prothrombin in the dorsal iris is one aspect of the injury response that is important in the initiation of regeneration. The possible relationships between the immune response and the regenerative response are considered with respect to phylogenetic variation of regeneration in general, and lens regeneration in particular.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntigen-Presenting CellsIrisLens, CrystallineRegenerationSalamandridaeSpecies SpecificityThrombinVertebratesWound HealingThrombin

Identifiers

PMID17005015
PMCPMC2100360
OpenAlexW2016854872

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.