Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27499878›Full record

ArticleRegeneration (Oxford, England)2016

Analogous cellular contribution and healing mechanisms following digit amputation and phalangeal fracture in mice.

Lindsay A Dawson, Jennifer Simkin, Michelle Sauque, Maegan Pela, Teresa Palkowski, Ken Muneoka

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Regeneration (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Toeing the line between regeneration and fibrosis.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  11. To regenerate or not to regenerate: Vertebrate model organisms of regeneration-competency and -incompetency.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lindsay A DawsonDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology Tulane University New Orleans Louisiana 70118 USA; Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine Texas A&M University College Station Texas 77843 USA.
Jennifer SimkinDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology Tulane University New Orleans Louisiana 70118 USA; Department of Biology University of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky 40506 USA.
Michelle SauqueDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology Tulane University New Orleans Louisiana 70118 USA; Department of Orthopedics University of Colorado Denver Aurora Colorado 80010 USA.
Maegan PelaDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology Tulane University New Orleans Louisiana 70118 USA.
Teresa PalkowskiDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology Tulane University New Orleans Louisiana 70118 USA.
Ken MuneokaDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology Tulane University New Orleans Louisiana 70118 USA; Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine Texas A&M University College Station Texas 77843 USA.
Tulane University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regeneration of amputated structures is severely limited in humans and mice, with complete regeneration restricted to the distal portion of the terminal phalanx (P3). Here, we investigate the dynamic tissue repair response of the second phalangeal element (P2) post amputation in the adult mouse, and show that the repair response of the amputated bone is similar to the proximal P2 bone fragment in fracture healing. The regeneration-incompetent P2 amputation response is characterized by periosteal endochondral ossification resulting in the deposition of new trabecular bone, corresponding to a significant increase in bone volume; however, this response is not associated with bone lengthening. We show that cells of the periosteum respond to amputation and fracture by contributing both chondrocytes and osteoblasts to the endochondral ossification response. Based on our studies, we suggest that the amputation response represents an attempt at regeneration that ultimately fails due to the lack of a distal organizing influence that is present in fracture healing.

Indexed as

Digitendochondral ossificationfracturemouseperiosteumregeneration

Identifiers

PMID27499878
PMCPMC4857751
OpenAlexW2231321683

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.