Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27392533›Full record

ReviewImmunology2017

Communicating systems in the body: how microbiota and microglia cooperate.

Daniel Erny, Anna Lena Hrabě de Angelis, Marco Prinz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Immunology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

35 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.

Daniel ErnyInstitute of Neuropathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Anna Lena Hrabě de AngelisInstitute of Neuropathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Marco PrinzInstitute of Neuropathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microglia are tissue macrophages of the central nervous system (CNS). Their key tasks are immune surveillance as well as responding to infections or other pathological states such as neurological diseases or injury. In recent years it has been discovered that microglia are additionally crucial for the maintenance of brain homeostasis during development and adulthood by adjusting the neuronal network and phagocytosing neuronal debris. Microglia persist in the CNS throughout the life of the organism and self-renew without engraftment of bone-marrow-derived cells. Until recently it remained unknown what controls their maturation and activation under homeostatic conditions. In this review we discuss new aspects of the interaction between host microbiota and brain function with special focus on the brain-resident innate immune cells, the microglia.

Indexed as

Central Nervous SystemImmunity, InnateMicrobiotaAnimalsHumansImmunologic SurveillanceMicrogliaNervous System DiseasesNeuronal PlasticityPhagocytosisgut-brain axismacrophagemicrobiotamicrogliashort-chain fatty acids

Identifiers

PMID27392533
PMCPMC5341501

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.