ArticleJournal of anatomy2015
Node retraction during patterning of the urinary collecting duct system.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engineering kidney developmental trajectory using culture boundary conditions.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Rho/ROCK activity tunes cell compartment segregation and differentiation in nephron-forming niches.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- The developing murine kidney actively negotiates geometric packing conflicts to avoid defects.Developmental cell · 2023Article
- Nascent nephrons during human embryonic development: Spatial distribution and relationship with urinary collecting system.Journal of anatomy · 2021Article
- Bronchial tree of the human embryo: Categorization of the branching mode as monopodial and dipodial.PloS one · 2021Article
- In developing mouse kidneys, orientation of loop of Henle growth is adaptive and guided by long-range cues from medullary collecting ducts.Journal of anatomy · 2019Article
- Sebinger Culture: A System Optimized for Morphological Maturation and Imaging of Cultured Mouse Metanephric Primordia.Bio-protocol · 2018Article
- Novel fixedDevelopment (Cambridge, England) · 2017Article
- Deducing the stage of origin of Wilms' tumours from a developmental series of Wt1-mutant mice.Disease models & mechanisms · 2015Article
- Signaling during Kidney Development.Cells · 2015Review
- The ureteric bud epithelium: morphogenesis and roles in metanephric kidney patterning.Molecular reproduction and development · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This report presents a novel mechanism for remodelling a branched epithelial tree. The mouse renal collecting duct develops by growth and repeated branching of an initially unbranched ureteric bud: this mechanism initially produces an almost fractal form with young branches connected to the centre of the kidney via a sequence of nodes (branch points) distributed widely throughout the developing organ. The collecting ducts of a mature kidney have a different form: from the nephrons in the renal cortex, long, straight lengths of collecting duct run almost parallel to one another through the renal medulla, and open together to the renal pelvis. Here we present time-lapse studies of E11.5 kidneys growing in culture: after about 5 days, the collecting duct trees show evidence of 'node retraction', in which the node of a 'Y'-shaped branch moves downwards, shortening the stalk of the 'Y', lengthening its arms and narrowing their divergence angle so that the 'Y' becomes a 'V'. Computer simulation suggests that node retraction can transform a spread tree, like that of an early kidney, into one with long, almost-parallel medullary rays similar to those seen in a mature real kidney.
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.