Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25020200›Full record

ReviewSeminars in cell & developmental biology2014

Sizing it up: the mechanical feedback hypothesis of organ growth regulation.

Amy Buchmann, Mark Alber, Jeremiah J Zartman

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in cell & developmental biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. GαCell communication and signaling : CCS · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Statistics of noisy growth with mechanical feedback in elastic tissues.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amy BuchmannDepartment of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.
Mark AlberDepartment of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA; Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. Electronic address: malber@nd.edu.
Jeremiah J ZartmanDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA. Electronic address: jzartman@nd.edu.
University of Notre Dame · USIndiana University School of Medicine

Funding

Study of the interplay of motility mechanisms during swaming of Myxococcus xanthuR01GM100470 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME · PI ALBER, MARK · 2011 to 2013
$770k
NIGMS NIH HHS 1R01GM100470NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM100470
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The question of how the physical dimensions of animal organs are specified has long fascinated both experimentalists and computational scientists working in the field of developmental biology. Research over the last few decades has identified many of the genes and signaling pathways involved in organizing the emergent multi-scale features of growth and homeostasis. However, an integrated model of organ growth regulation is still unrealized due to the numerous feedback control loops found within and between intercellular signaling pathways as well as a lack of understanding of the exact role of mechanotransduction. Here, we review several computational and experimental studies that have investigated the mechanical feedback hypothesis of organ growth control, which postulates that mechanical forces are important for regulating the termination of growth and hence the final physical dimensions of organs. In particular, we highlight selected computational studies that have focused on the regulation of growth of the Drosophila wing imaginal disc. In many ways, these computational and theoretical approaches continue to guide experimental inquiry. We demonstrate using several examples how future progress in dissecting the crosstalk between the genetic and biophysical mechanisms controlling organ growth might depend on the close coupling between computational and experimental approaches, as well as comparison of growth control mechanisms in other systems.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsComputational BiologyDrosophila melanogasterFeedback, PhysiologicalMorphogenesisOrgan SizeSignal TransductionWings, AnimalComputational and mathematical modelingDrosophila wing discIntercellular signalingLimb developmentMechanobiology

Identifiers

PMID25020200
PMCPMC8761481
OpenAlexW2031524718

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.