Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20570935›Full record

ReviewDevelopment (Cambridge, England)2010

Modelling the Bicoid gradient.

Oliver Grimm, Mathieu Coppey, Eric Wieschaus

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Development (Cambridge, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing 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

67 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Scale invariance in early embryonic development.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Two-fluid dynamics and micron-thin boundary layers shape cytoplasmic flows in earlyProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mesoderm patterning by a dynamic gradient of retinoic acid signalling.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Hereditas · 2019
    Article
  20. Article

7 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.

Oliver GrimmHoward Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. ogrimm@princeton.edu
Mathieu Coppey
Eric Wieschaus

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Morphogen gradients provide embryonic tissues with positional information by inducing target genes at different concentration thresholds and thus at different positions. The Bicoid morphogen gradient in Drosophila melanogaster embryos has recently been analysed quantitatively, yet how it forms remains a matter of controversy. Several biophysical models that rely on production, diffusion and degradation have been formulated to account for the observed dynamics of the Bicoid gradient, but no one model can account for all its characteristics. Here, we discuss how existing data on this gradient fit the various proposed models and what aspects of gradient formation these models fail to explain. We suggest that knowing a few additional parameters, such as the lifetime of Bicoid, would help to identify and develop better models of Bicoid gradient formation.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsDiffusionDrosophila melanogaster

Identifiers

PMID20570935
PMCPMC2889599

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.