Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20445109›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2010

Amacrine cell gene expression and survival signaling: differences from neighboring retinal ganglion cells.

Noelia J Kunzevitzky, Monica V Almeida, Jeffrey L Goldberg

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. CaeNeuro · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Retinal organoids: a window into human retinal development.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2020
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Regulating Set-β's Subcellular Localization Toggles Its Function between Inhibiting and Promoting Axon Growth and Regeneration.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2014
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Amacrine cell subtypes differ in their intrinsic neurite growth capacity.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2013
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Noelia J KunzevitzkyBascom Palmer Eye Institute, McKnight Vision Research Building, Room 405, 1638 NW 10th Avenue, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
Monica V Almeida
Jeffrey L Goldberg
The California Eye Institute · US

Funding

Shared Equipment ModuleP30EY014801 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Victor L Perez · 2004 to 2026
$12.2M
Synapses,Channels, and Transduction in NeuroscienceT32NS007044 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI MULLER, KENNETH J · 1985 to 2010
$2.2M
DEVELOPMENTAL CONTROL OF AXON REGENERATION IN RGCsR01NS061348 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI GOLDBERG, JEFFREY L · 2007 to 2010
$1.2M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY014801NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS061348NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS007044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PURPOSE. To describe how developing amacrine cells and retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) differ in survival signaling and global gene expression. METHODS. Amacrine cells were immunopurified and processed for gene microarray analysis. For survival studies, purified amacrine cells were cultured at low density in serum-free medium, with and without peptide trophic factors and survival pathway inhibitors. The differences in gene expression between amacrine cells and RGCs were analyzed by comparing the transcriptomes of these two cell types at the same developmental ages. RESULTS. The amacrine cell transcriptome was very dynamic during development. Amacrine cell gene expression was remarkably similar to that of RGCs, but differed in several gene ontologies, including polarity- and neurotransmission-associated genes. Unlike RGCs, amacrine cell survival in vitro was independent of cell density and the presence of exogenous trophic factors, but necessitated Erk activation via MEK1/2 and AKT signaling. Finally, comparison of the gene expression profile of amacrine cells and RGCs provided a list of polarity-associated candidate genes that may explain the inability of amacrine cells to differentiate axons and dendrites as RGCs do. CONCLUSIONS. Comparison of the gene expression profile between amacrine cells and RGCs may improve our understanding of why amacrine cells fail to differentiate axons and dendrites during retinal development and of what makes amacrine cells differ in their resistance to neurodegeneration. Switching RGCs to an amacrine cell-like state could help preserve their survival in neurodegenerative diseases like glaucoma, and amacrine cells could provide a ready source of replacement RGCs in such optic neuropathies.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingAmacrine CellsAnimalsAnimals, NewbornAxonsCell DifferentiationCells, CulturedCell SurvivalGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalMicroscopy, FluorescenceNeuritesOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyRetinal Ganglion CellsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction

Identifiers

PMID20445109
PMCPMC2904021
OpenAlexW2051717656

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.