Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27266971›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in genetics & development2016

The early wound signals.

Philipp Niethammer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in genetics & development, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing 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

48 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Emerging roles of mitochondria in animal regeneration.Cell regeneration (London, England) · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Muscle stem cells get a new look: Dynamic cellular projections as sensors of the stem cell niche.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Integrative biology of injury in animals.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Molecular characterization of the immediate wound response of the solitary ascidian Polycarpa mytiligera.Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists · 2022
    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.

Philipp NiethammerCell Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: niethamp@mskcc.org.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Regulation of Wound Detection in Animal TissuesR01GM099970 · NIGMS · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI NIETHAMMER, PHILIPP MICHAEL · 2012 to 2020
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM099970
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wounding of tissue barriers, such as epithelia, disrupts homeostasis and allows infection. Within minutes, animals detect injury and respond to it by recruitment of phagocytes and barrier breach closure. The signals that activate these first events are scarcely known. Commonly considered are cytoplasmic factors released into the extracellular space by lysing cells (Damage Associated Molecular Patterns, DAMPs). DAMPs activate inflammatory gene transcription through pattern recognition receptors. But the promptness of wound responses is difficult to explain by transcriptional mechanisms alone. This review highlights the emerging role of nonlytic stress signals in the rapid detection of wounds.

Indexed as

AlarminsAnimalsDrosophilaExtracellular SpaceHomeostasisHumansPhagocytesReceptors, Pattern RecognitionWound HealingWounds and InjuriesZebrafishAlarminsReceptors, Pattern Recognition

Identifiers

PMID27266971
PMCPMC5278878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.