Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26748623›Full record

ReviewDevelopment, growth & differentiation2016

Encoding and decoding time in neural development.

Kenichi Toma, Tien-Cheng Wang, Carina Hanashima

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Development, growth & differentiation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Cutting-edge technologies in neural regeneration.Cell regeneration (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Brain Organoids as Model Systems for Genetic Neurodevelopmental Disorders.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. What does time mean in development?Development (Cambridge, England) · 2018
    Review
  16. Cell cycle-arrested cells know the right time.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 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

3 authors.

Kenichi TomaLaboratory for Neocortical Development, RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology, Kobe, 650-0047, Japan.
Tien-Cheng WangLaboratory for Neocortical Development, RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology, Kobe, 650-0047, Japan.
Carina HanashimaLaboratory for Neocortical Development, RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology, Kobe, 650-0047, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of a multicellular organism involves time-dependent changes in molecular and cellular states; therefore 'time' is an indispensable mathematical parameter of ontogenesis. Regardless of their inextricable relationship, there is a limited number of events for which the output of developmental phenomena primarily uses temporal cues that are generated through multilevel interactions between molecules, cells, and tissues. In this review, we focus on neural stem cells, which serve as a faithful decoder of temporal cues to transmit biological information and generate specific output in the developing nervous system. We further explore the identity of the temporal information that is encoded in neural development, and how this information is decoded into various cellular fate decisions.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsHumansNervous SystemNeurogenesiscell cycleneural stem celltemporal codetimingtranscriptional network

Identifiers

PMID26748623
PMCPMC11520978

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.