Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25395296›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology2014

Glial cell development and function in zebrafish.

David A Lyons, William S Talbot

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing 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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 147 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Development of Retinal Astroglia.Annual review of vision science · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Wnt/β-catenin Signaling in Central Nervous System Regeneration.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

David A LyonsCentre for Neuroregeneration, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4SB, United Kingdom.
William S TalbotDepartment of Developmental Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
Stanford University · USUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 102836
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The zebrafish is a premier vertebrate model system that offers many experimental advantages for in vivo imaging and genetic studies. This review provides an overview of glial cell types in the central and peripheral nervous system of zebrafish. We highlight some recent work that exploited the strengths of the zebrafish system to increase the understanding of the role of Gpr126 in Schwann cell myelination and illuminate the mechanisms controlling oligodendrocyte development and myelination. We also summarize similarities and differences between zebrafish radial glia and mammalian astrocytes and consider the possibility that their distinct characteristics may represent extremes in a continuum of cell identity. Finally, we focus on the emergence of zebrafish as a model for elucidating the development and function of microglia. These recent studies have highlighted the power of the zebrafish system for analyzing important aspects of glial development and function.

Indexed as

AnimalsAstrocytesCell DifferentiationCell LineageMammalsMyelin SheathNeurogliaOligodendrogliaReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledSchwann CellsZebrafishZebrafish ProteinsReceptors, G-Protein-Coupledstx7l protein, zebrafishZebrafish Proteins

Identifiers

PMID25395296
PMCPMC4315925
OpenAlexW2132893883

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.