Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26598727›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2016

A flexible genetic toolkit for arthropod neurogenesis.

Angelika Stollewerk

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Introduction to 'Homology and convergence in nervous system evolution'.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angelika StollewerkSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK a.stollewerk@qmul.ac.uk.
Google (United States) · US

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F021909/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Arthropods show considerable variations in early neurogenesis. This includes the pattern of specification, division and movement of neural precursors and progenitors. In all metazoans with nervous systems, including arthropods, conserved genes regulate neurogenesis, which raises the question of how the various morphological mechanisms have emerged and how the same genetic toolkit might generate different morphological outcomes. Here I address this question by comparing neurogenesis across arthropods and show how variations in the regulation and function of the neural genes might explain this phenomenon and how they might have facilitated the evolution of the diverse morphological mechanisms of neurogenesis.

Indexed as

AnimalsArthropodsBiological EvolutionGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalNeurogenesisasymmetric divisionneural precursorsneural progenitorsneurogenic potentialNotch signallingpatterning genes

Identifiers

PMID26598727
PMCPMC4685583
OpenAlexW2418056546

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.