Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20383202›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2010

100 years of Drosophila research and its impact on vertebrate neuroscience: a history lesson for the future.

Hugo J Bellen, Chao Tong, Hiroshi Tsuda

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 228 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
228citing 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

228 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Biology · 2026
    Review
  3. The Repair Manual of a Fruit Fly Brain.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Special Issue "International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Cockroaches as an Emerging Invertebrate Model in Bioscience Research:Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Emerging tools to advance neuroethology in butterflies and moths.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

168 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

3 authors.

Hugo J BellenDepartment ofNeuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA. hbellen@bcm.tmc.edu
Chao Tong
Hiroshi Tsuda

Funding

Mutidisciplinary Training;Brain Disorders &DevelopmentT32NS043124 · NINDS · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI SWANN, JOHN WILLIAM · 2002 to 2021
$4.6M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNINDS NIH HHS T32 NS043124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discoveries in fruit flies have greatly contributed to our understanding of neuroscience. The use of an unparalleled wealth of tools, many of which originated between 1910–1960, has enabled milestone discoveries in nervous system development and function. Such findings have triggered and guided many research efforts in vertebrate neuroscience. After 100 years, fruit flies continue to be the choice model system for many neuroscientists. The combinational use of powerful research tools will ensure that this model organism will continue to lead to key discoveries that will impact vertebrate neuroscience.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrosophilaDrosophila ProteinsForecastingHumansNeurosciencesResearchVertebratesDrosophila Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20383202
PMCPMC4022039

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.