ArticlePLoS genetics2015
Identification and functional analysis of healing regulators in Drosophila.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
- Imaginal Disc Regeneration: Something Old, Something New.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2022Review
- Requirement for and polarized localization of integrin proteins during Drosophila wound closure.Molecular biology of the cell · 2018Article
- ROS-Induced JNK and p38 Signaling Is Required for Unpaired Cytokine Activation during Drosophila Regeneration.PLoS genetics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wound healing is an essential homeostatic mechanism that maintains the epithelial barrier integrity after tissue damage. Although we know the overall steps in wound healing, many of the underlying molecular mechanisms remain unclear. Genetically amenable systems, such as wound healing in Drosophila imaginal discs, do not model all aspects of the repair process. However, they do allow the less understood aspects of the healing response to be explored, e.g., which signal(s) are responsible for initiating tissue remodeling? How is sealing of the epithelia achieved? Or, what inhibitory cues cancel the healing machinery upon completion? Answering these and other questions first requires the identification and functional analysis of wound specific genes. A variety of different microarray analyses of murine and humans have identified characteristic profiles of gene expression at the wound site, however, very few functional studies in healing regulation have been carried out. We developed an experimentally controlled method that is healing-permissive and that allows live imaging and biochemical analysis of cultured imaginal discs. We performed comparative genome-wide profiling between Drosophila imaginal cells actively involved in healing versus their non-engaged siblings. Sets of potential wound-specific genes were subsequently identified. Importantly, besides identifying and categorizing new genes, we functionally tested many of their gene products by genetic interference and overexpression in healing assays. This non-saturated analysis defines a relevant set of genes whose changes in expression level are functionally significant for proper tissue repair. Amongst these we identified the TCP1 chaperonin complex as a key regulator of the actin cytoskeleton essential for the wound healing response. There is promise that our newly identified wound-healing genes will guide future work in the more complex mammalian wound healing response.
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.