Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24794753›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2014

Axon regeneration in C. elegans.

Marc Hammarlund, Yishi Jin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. eNeuro · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. CDK14 Promotes Axon Regeneration by Regulating the Noncanonical Wnt Signaling Pathway in a Kinase-Independent Manner.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [Progress on axon regeneration in model organisms].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2020
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genetics · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Functional Dissection ofFrontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2019
    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

2 authors.

Marc HammarlundDepartment of Genetics and Program in Cellular Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration, and Repair, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, United States. Electronic address: marc.hammarlund@yale.edu.
Yishi JinSection of Neurobiology and Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, United States. Electronic address: yijin@ucsd.edu.

Funding

GABAERGIC NEURON DIFFERENTIATION IN C ELEGANSR01NS035546 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI JIN, YISHI · 1996 to 2016
$5.3M
Development of a C.elegans model for axonal regenerationR56NS057317 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI CHISHOLM, ANDREW D, JIN, YISHI · 2014 to 2014
$388k
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNINDS NIH HHS R01 NS035546NINDS NIH HHS R56 NS057317
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single axon transection by laser surgery has made Caenorhabditis elegans a new model for axon regeneration. Multiple conserved molecular signaling modules have been discovered through powerful genetic screening. In vivo imaging with single cell and axon resolution has revealed unprecedented cellular dynamics in regenerating axons. Information from C. elegans has greatly expanded our knowledge of the molecular and cellular mechanisms of axon regeneration.

Indexed as

Nervous System DiseasesAnimalsAxonsCaenorhabditis elegansCaenorhabditis elegans ProteinsDisease Models, AnimalNerve RegenerationNeuronsCaenorhabditis elegans Proteins

Identifiers

PMID24794753
PMCPMC4122601

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.