Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25807087›Full record

RevieweLife2015

Advancing biology through a deeper understanding of zebrafish ecology and evolution.

David M Parichy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in eLife, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Critical period plasticity enables credit assignment.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Early ultraviolet exposure disrupts late dorsal fin skeletal development in zebrafish.Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Dynamic expression of the zebrafish (Danio rerio) proteome across early larval development.Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part D, Genomics & proteomics · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 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

1 author.

David M ParichyDepartment of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States.

Funding

Melanocyte boundary interactions in development and neoplasiaR01GM096906 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI PARICHY, DAVID M · 2011 to 2016
$2.2M
PIGMENTARY MODEL FOR THYROID HORMONE ACTIONS ON STEM CELL LINEAGESR01GM111233 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI PARICHY, DAVID M · 2014 to 2016
$904k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM096906NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM111233
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last two decades, the zebrafish has joined the ranks of premier model organisms for biomedical research, with a full suite of tools and genomic resources. Yet we still know comparatively little about its natural history. Here I review what is known about the natural history of the zebrafish, where significant gaps in our knowledge remain, and how a fuller appreciation of this organism's ecology and behavior, population genetics, and phylogeny can inform a variety of research endeavors.

Indexed as

EcologyEcosystemPhylogenyAnimalsBangladeshGenetic VariationGeographyIndiaNepalZebrafishbehaviorecologyevolutionary biologygenomicsphylogenypigment patternpopulation geneticssex determinationthe natural history of model organismszebrafish

Identifiers

PMID25807087
PMCPMC4373672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.