ArticleNeural development2014
Genome-wide expression profile of the response to spinal cord injury in Xenopus laevis reveals extensive differences between regenerative and non-regenerative stages.
Article in Neural development, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spinal cord injury induces mitochondrial dysfunction and metabolic reprogramming in non-regenerativeiScience · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Translational Relevance of Secondary Intracellular Signaling Cascades Following Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- BRCA1 and ELK-1 regulate neural progenitor cell fate in the optic tectum in response to visual experience inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Gene expression and locomotor recovery in adult rats with spinal cord injury and plasma-synthesized polypyrrole/iodine application combined with a mixed rehabilitation scheme.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- IsPeerJ · 2023Article
- Spinal cord regeneration - the origins of progenitor cells for functional rebuilding.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2022Review
- Distinct Glycosylation Responses to Spinal Cord Injury in Regenerative and Nonregenerative Models.Journal of proteome research · 2022Article
- Mitochondrial function in spinal cord injury and regeneration.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2022Review
- Acute multidrug delivery via a wearable bioreactor facilitates long-term limb regeneration and functional recovery in adultScience advances · 2022Article
- Developmental and Injury-induced Changes in DNA Methylation in Regenerative versus Non-regenerative Regions of the Vertebrate Central Nervous System.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Analysis of the early response to spinal cord injury identified a key role for mTORC1 signaling in the activation of neural stem progenitor cells.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2021Article
- Unraveling Axon Guidance during Axotomy and Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Animal regeneration in the era of transcriptomics.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021Review
- Article
- Cellular response to spinal cord injury in regenerative and non-regenerative stages in Xenopus laevis.Neural development · 2021Article
- Screening of disease-related biomarkers related to neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury (SCI).Human genomics · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundXenopus laevis has regenerative and non-regenerative stages. As a tadpole, it is fully capable of functional recovery after a spinal cord injury, while its juvenile form (froglet) loses this capability during metamorphosis. We envision that comparative studies between regenerative and non-regenerative stages in Xenopus could aid in understanding why spinal cord regeneration fails in human beings.
resultsTo identify the mechanisms that allow the tadpole to regenerate and inhibit regeneration in the froglet, we obtained a transcriptome-wide profile of the response to spinal cord injury in Xenopus regenerative and non-regenerative stages. We found extensive transcriptome changes in regenerative tadpoles at 1 day after injury, while this was only observed by 6 days after injury in non-regenerative froglets. In addition, when comparing both stages, we found that they deployed a very different repertoire of transcripts, with more than 80% of them regulated in only one stage, including previously unannotated transcripts. This was supported by gene ontology enrichment analysis and validated by RT-qPCR, which showed that transcripts involved in metabolism, response to stress, cell cycle, development, immune response and inflammation, neurogenesis, and axonal regeneration were regulated differentially between regenerative and non-regenerative stages.
conclusionsWe identified differences in the timing of the transcriptional response and in the inventory of regulated transcripts and biological processes activated in response to spinal cord injury when comparing regenerative and non-regenerative stages. These genes and biological processes provide an entry point to understand why regeneration fails in mammals. Furthermore, our results introduce Xenopus laevis as a genetic model organism to study spinal cord regeneration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.