Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21527310›Full record

ReviewProgress in neurobiology2011

The emerging role of forces in axonal elongation.

Daniel M Suter, Kyle E Miller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Progress in neurobiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing 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

94 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The mechanism and potential therapeutic target of piezo channels in pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Mathematical models of neuronal growth.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

34 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.

Daniel M SuterDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054, United States. dsuter@purdue.edu
Kyle E Miller

Funding

Regulation of Neuronal Growth Cone GuidanceR01NS049233 · NINDS · PURDUE UNIVERSITY WEST LAFAYETTE · PI SUTER, DANIEL MARCEL · 2005 to 2009
$1.5M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS049233
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An understanding of how axons elongate is needed to develop rational strategies to treat neurological diseases and nerve injury. Growth cone-mediated neuronal elongation is currently viewed as occurring through cytoskeletal dynamics involving the polymerization of actin and tubulin subunits at the tip of the axon. However, recent work suggests that axons and growth cones also generate forces (through cytoskeletal dynamics, kinesin, dynein, and myosin), forces induce axonal elongation, and axons lengthen by stretching. This review highlights results from various model systems (Drosophila, Aplysia, Xenopus, chicken, mouse, rat, and PC12 cells), supporting a role for forces, bulk microtubule movements, and intercalated mass addition in the process of axonal elongation. We think that a satisfying answer to the question, "How do axons grow?" will come by integrating the best aspects of biophysics, genetics, and cell biology.

Indexed as

AnimalsAxonsCell ShapeCytoskeletonGrowth ConesHumansSynaptic Transmission

Identifiers

PMID21527310
PMCPMC3115633

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.