Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23044825›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2012

Genetics of germ cell development.

Bluma J Lesch, David C Page

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing 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

79 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Mechanisms of human germ cell development.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Genetic control of meiosis surveillance mechanisms in mammals.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 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.

Bluma J LeschHoward Hughes Medical Institute, Whitehead Institute and Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 9 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA. leschb@wi.mit.edu
David C Page

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The germ line represents a continuous cellular link between generations and between species, but the germ cells themselves develop in a specialized, organism-specific context. The model organisms Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila melanogaster and the mouse display striking similarities, as well as major differences, in the means by which they control germ cell development. Recent developments in genetic technologies allow a more detailed comparison of the germ cells of these three organisms than has previously been possible, shedding light not only on universal aspects of germline regulation, but also on the control of the pluripotent state in vivo and on the earliest steps of embryogenesis. Here, we highlight themes from the comparison of these three alternative strategies for navigating the fundamental cycle of sexual reproduction.

Indexed as

AnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansDrosophila melanogasterFemaleGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalMaleMiceModels, GeneticOocytesSignal TransductionSpermatocytes

Identifiers

PMID23044825

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.