Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22391035›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of cell biology2012

The cell biology of regeneration.

Ryan S King, Phillip A Newmark

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of cell biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing 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

60 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024
    Review
  3. Albumin Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery Systems.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024
    Review
  4. Inter-organ communication during tissue regeneration.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2023
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. CaCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2019
    Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Ryan S KingHoward Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
Phillip A Newmark

Funding

Stem cell proliferation and differentiation in planariaR01HD043403 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI Phillip A Newmark · 2003 to 2026
$5.1M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD043403NICHD NIH HHS R01-HD043403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regeneration of complex structures after injury requires dramatic changes in cellular behavior. Regenerating tissues initiate a program that includes diverse processes such as wound healing, cell death, dedifferentiation, and stem (or progenitor) cell proliferation; furthermore, newly regenerated tissues must integrate polarity and positional identity cues with preexisting body structures. Gene knockdown approaches and transgenesis-based lineage and functional analyses have been instrumental in deciphering various aspects of regenerative processes in diverse animal models for studying regeneration.

Indexed as

Cell BiologyAnimalsApoptosisCell DedifferentiationCell ProliferationHumansRegenerationRegenerative Medicine

Identifiers

PMID22391035
PMCPMC3307701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.