Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20644208›Full record

ReviewThe journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society2010

Are human and mouse satellite cells really the same?

Luisa Boldrin, Francesco Muntoni, Jennifer E Morgan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Molecular regulation of myocyte fusion.Current topics in developmental biology · 2024
    Review
  10. Ablation ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Muscle stem cells and rotator cuff injury.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2021
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

5 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luisa BoldrinDubowitz Neuromuscular Centre, UCL Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N1EH, United Kingdom. l.boldrin@ich.ucl.ac.uk
Francesco Muntoni
Jennifer E Morgan
University College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0601943
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Satellite cells are quiescent cells located under the basal lamina of skeletal muscle fibers that contribute to muscle growth, maintenance, repair, and regeneration. Mouse satellite cells have been shown to be muscle stem cells that are able to regenerate muscle fibers and self-renew. As human skeletal muscle is also able to regenerate following injury, we assume that the human satellite cell is, like its murine equivalent, a muscle stem cell. In this review, we compare human and mouse satellite cells and highlight their similarities and differences. We discuss gaps in our knowledge of human satellite cells, compared with that of mouse satellite cells, and suggest ways in which we may advance studies on human satellite cells, particularly by finding new markers and attempting to re-create the human satellite cell niche in vitro.

Indexed as

Satellite Cells, Skeletal MuscleAnimalsCell ProliferationCellular SenescenceExerciseHumansMiceMuscle, SkeletalRegeneration

Identifiers

PMID20644208
PMCPMC2958137
OpenAlexW2170506750

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.