Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26793119›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2015

Postnatal Ontogeny of the Cranial Base and Craniofacial Skeleton in Male C57BL/6J Mice: A Reference Standard for Quantitative Analysis.

Siddharth R Vora, Esra D Camci, Timothy C Cox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing 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

61 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Exploring the role ofFrontiers in physiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Dosage-dependent effects of FGFR2Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Palatal segment contributions to midfacial anterior-posterior growth.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Cranial Neural Crest Specific Deletion ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 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

3 authors.

Siddharth R VoraDepartments of Oral Health Sciences, University of WashingtonSeattle, WA, USA; Orthodontics, University of WashingtonSeattle, WA, USA; Center for Developmental Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Seattle Children's Research InstituteSeattle, WA, USA.
Esra D CamciDepartments of Oral Health Sciences, University of WashingtonSeattle, WA, USA; Center for Developmental Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Seattle Children's Research InstituteSeattle, WA, USA.
Timothy C CoxCenter for Developmental Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Seattle Children's Research InstituteSeattle, WA, USA; Pediatrics (Craniofacial Medicine), University of WashingtonSeattle, WA, USA; Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash UniversityClayton, VIC, Australia.

Funding

Comprehensive Training in Inter-Disciplinary Oral Health ResearchT90DE021984 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Robert Aaron Cornell · 2012 to 2026
$7.9M
Genetic and developmental pathways causing midface hypoplasiaR01DE022561 · NIDCR · SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI COX, TIMOTHY CHILTON · 2012 to 2016
$3.3M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE022561NIDCR NIH HHS T90 DE021984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Growth of the craniofacial skeleton is a complex process controlled by both genetic and epigenetic factors, perturbations of which can lead to varying degrees of dysmorphology. Mouse models that recapitulate clinical craniofacial phenotypes are instrumental in studying the morphogenetic progression of diseases as well as uncovering their genetic and molecular bases. Commonly encountered phenotypes in these models include defects in the cranial base synchondroses, calvarial sutures, mandible or the midface, or any combination thereof, with the concurrent presence of altered overall craniofacial growth. However, the literature lacks an adequate normative timeline of developmental events and growth trends that shape the mouse craniofacial skeleton. In this report, we analyzed the postnatal craniofacial ontogeny (from postnatal day 7 [P7] through to P112) of male mice from the most widely used inbred mouse strain, C57BL/6J, using high-resolution microcomputed tomography (μCT) in combination with classic morphometric approaches. We also evaluated cranial base synchondroses at the histological level, and compared it to μCT-generated data to assess the timing and pattern of closure of these structures. Our data underscore the complex and unique growth patterns of individual bones and cranial regions and highlight the need to include younger animals in studies aimed at analyzing craniofacial growth processes. Furthermore, these data serve as a reference standard for future quantitative work.

Indexed as

cranial basecraniofacialmorphometricsmouse modelspostnatal growthsynchondroses

Identifiers

PMID26793119
PMCPMC4709510

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.