Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20329357›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2010

Flightless flies: Drosophila models of neuromuscular disease.

Thomas E Lloyd, J Paul Taylor

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

68 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Toxics · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Inhibition of autophagy rescues muscle atrophy in a LGMDD2 Drosophila model.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The potential use ofTurkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Thomas E LloydDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. tlloyd4@jhmi.edu
J Paul Taylor

Funding

A Drosophila model of motor neuron disease using mutations in P150 / Dynactin.K08NS062890 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LLOYD, THOMAS E. · 2008 to 2012
$878k
NINDS NIH HHS K08 NS062890
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, has a long and rich history as an important model organism for biologists. In particular, study of the fruit fly has been essential to much of our fundamental understanding of the development and function of the nervous system. In recent years, studies using fruit flies have provided important insights into the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative and neuromuscular diseases. Fly models of spinal muscular atrophy, spinobulbar muscular atrophy,myotonic dystrophy, dystrophinopathies and other inherited neuromuscular diseases recapitulate many of the key pathologic features of the human disease. The ability to perform genetic screens holds promise for uncovering the molecular mechanisms of disease, and indeed, for identifying novel therapeutic targets. This review will summarize recent progress in developing fly models of neuromuscular diseases and will emphasize the contribution that Drosophila has made to our understanding of these diseases.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalDrosophila melanogasterNeuromuscular DiseasesAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID20329357
PMCPMC3062507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.