Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25349446›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2014

Primitive endoderm differentiation: from specification to epithelium formation.

Stéphanie Hermitte, Claire Chazaud

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Unraveling the Spatiotemporal Human Pluripotency in Embryonic Development.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Roles of MicroRNAs in Establishing and Modulating Stem Cell Potential.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  17. Review
  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

2 authors.

Stéphanie HermitteClermont Université, Université d'Auvergne, Laboratoire GReD, BP 10448, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France INSERM, UMR1103, 63001 Clermont-Ferrand, France CNRS, UMR6293, 63001 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Claire ChazaudClermont Université, Université d'Auvergne, Laboratoire GReD, BP 10448, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France INSERM, UMR1103, 63001 Clermont-Ferrand, France CNRS, UMR6293, 63001 Clermont-Ferrand, France claire.chazaud@udamail.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In amniotes, primitive endoderm (PrE) plays important roles not only for nutrient support but also as an inductive tissue required for embryo patterning. PrE is an epithelial monolayer that is visible shortly before embryo implantation and is one of the first three cell lineages produced by the embryo. We review here the molecular mechanisms that have been uncovered during the past 10 years on PrE and epiblast cell lineage specification within the inner cell mass of the blastocyst and on their subsequent steps of differentiation.

Indexed as

AnimalsBlastocystCell DifferentiationCell LineageEmbryonic DevelopmentEndodermEpitheliumFibroblast Growth Factor 4Gene DosageGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalHomeodomain ProteinsMiceModels, BiologicalNanog Homeobox ProteinFgf4 protein, mouseFibroblast Growth Factor 4Homeodomain ProteinsNanog Homeobox ProteinNanog protein, mouseblastocystcell differentiationcell polarizationcell sortingepitheliumlineage specification

Identifiers

PMID25349446
PMCPMC4216460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.