Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23778971›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Molecular cell biology2013

A self-organization framework for symmetry breaking in the mammalian embryo.

Sebastian Wennekamp, Sven Mesecke, François Nédélec, Takashi Hiiragi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing 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

56 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Information content and optimization of self-organized developmental systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Journey of the mouse primitive endoderm: from specification to maturation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Pak2 reduction induces a failure of early embryonic development in mice.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Spatial protein analysis in developing tissues: a sampling-based image processing approach.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Stem Cell Signaling Pathways in the Small Intestine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Making headway towards understanding how epigenetic mechanisms contribute to early-life effects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    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

4 authors.

Sebastian WennekampDevelopmental Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Meyerhofstrasse 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany.
Sven Mesecke
François Nédélec
Takashi Hiiragi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mechanisms underlying the appearance of asymmetry between cells in the early embryo and consequently the specification of distinct cell lineages during mammalian development remain elusive. Recent experimental advances have revealed unexpected dynamics of and new complexity in this process. These findings can be integrated in a new unified framework that regards the early mammalian embryo as a self-organizing system.

Indexed as

Cell LineageAnimalsBody PatterningCell PolarityComputer SimulationEmbryo, MammalianEmbryonic DevelopmentGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalHumansModels, Biological

Identifiers

PMID23778971

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.