Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24040158›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Clonal astrocytic response to cortical injury.

Eduardo Martín-López, Jorge García-Marques, Raúl Núñez-Llaves, Laura López-Mascaraque

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing 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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. StarTrack: Mapping Cellular Fates with Inheritable Color Codes.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Mechanobiological Modulation ofACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Deciphering neural heterogeneity through cell lineage tracing.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Eduardo Martín-LópezInstituto Cajal, CSIC, Madrid, Spain.
Jorge García-Marques
Raúl Núñez-Llaves
Laura López-Mascaraque

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Astrocytes are a heterogeneous population of glial cells with multifaceted roles in the central nervous system. Recently, the new method for the clonal analysis Star Track evidenced the link between astrocyte heterogeneity and lineage. Here, we tested the morphological response to mechanical injury of clonally related astrocytes using the Star Track approach, which labels each cell lineage with a specific code of colors. Histological and immunohistochemical analyses at 7 days post injury revealed a variety of morphological changes that were different among distinct clones. In many cases, cells of the same clone responded equally to the injury, suggesting the dependence on their genetic codification (intrinsic response). However, in other cases cells of the same clone responded differently to the injury, indicating their response to extrinsic factors. Thus, whereas some clones exhibited a strong morphological alteration or a high proliferative response to the injury, other clones located at similar distances to the lesion were apparently unresponsive. Concurrence of different clonal responses to the injury reveals the importance of the development determining the astrocyte features in response to brain injuries. These features should be considered to develop therapies that affect glial function.

Indexed as

AnimalsAstrocytesBiomarkersBrain InjuriesCell ProliferationCerebral CortexClone CellsDisease Models, AnimalElectroporationHypertrophyMiceBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID24040158
PMCPMC3769363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.