Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26857418›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular research2016

Comparative transcriptome profiling of the injured zebrafish and mouse hearts identifies miRNA-dependent repair pathways.

Stefania Crippa, Mohamed Nemir, Samir Ounzain, Mark Ibberson, Corinne Berthonneche, Alexandre Sarre, Gaëlle Boisset, Damien Maison, Keith Harshman, Ioannis Xenarios and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Non-coding RNAs in Cardiac Regeneration.Frontiers in physiology · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Recent advances in myocardial regeneration strategy.The Journal of international medical research · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stefania CrippaExperimental Cardiology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Lausanne Medical School, Lausanne 1011, Switzerland.
Mohamed NemirExperimental Cardiology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Lausanne Medical School, Lausanne 1011, Switzerland.
Samir OunzainExperimental Cardiology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Lausanne Medical School, Lausanne 1011, Switzerland.
Mark IbbersonSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Corinne BerthonnecheCardiovascular Assessment Facility, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Alexandre SarreCardiovascular Assessment Facility, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gaëlle BoissetInstitute for Research in Ophthalmology, Sion, Switzerland.
Damien MaisonExperimental Cardiology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Lausanne Medical School, Lausanne 1011, Switzerland.
Keith HarshmanLausanne Genomic Technologies Facility, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ioannis XenariosSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dario DivianiDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Daniel SchorderetInstitute for Research in Ophthalmology, Sion, Switzerland.
Thierry PedrazziniExperimental Cardiology Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Lausanne Medical School, Lausanne 1011, Switzerland thierry.pedrazzini@chuv.ch.
University of Lausanne · CHInstitut de Recherche en Opthalmologie · CHSIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe adult mammalian heart has poor regenerative capacity. In contrast, the zebrafish heart retains a robust capacity for regeneration into adulthood. These distinct responses are consequences of a differential utilization of evolutionary-conserved gene regulatory networks in the damaged heart. To systematically identify miRNA-dependent networks controlling cardiac repair following injury, we performed comparative gene and miRNA profiling of the cardiac transcriptome in adult mice and zebrafish. METHODS AND

resultsUsing an integrated approach, we show that 45 miRNA-dependent networks, involved in critical biological pathways, are differentially modulated in the injured zebrafish vs. mouse hearts. We study, more particularly, the miR-26a-dependent response. Therefore, miR-26a is down-regulated in the fish heart after injury, whereas its expression remains constant in the mouse heart. Targets of miR-26a involve activators of the cell cycle and Ezh2, a component of the polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2). Importantly, PRC2 exerts repressive functions on negative regulators of the cell cycle. In cultured neonatal cardiomyocytes, inhibition of miR-26a stimulates, therefore, cardiomyocyte proliferation. Accordingly, miR-26a knockdown prolongs the proliferative window of cardiomyocytes in the post-natal mouse heart.

conclusionsThis novel strategy identifies a series of miRNAs and associated pathways, in particular miR-26a, which represent attractive therapeutic targets for inducing repair in the injured heart.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell CycleCell ProliferationGene Expression ProfilingGene Regulatory NetworksMice, Inbred C57BLMicroRNAsMyocytes, CardiacRegenerationWound HealingZebrafishMicroRNAsmiRNAsMouseMyocardial infarctionRepair mechanismsZebrafish

Identifiers

PMID26857418
PMCPMC4798047
OpenAlexW2264326012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.