ReviewF1000Research2016
Regenerating the liver: not so simple after all?
Review in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Purinergic signaling in liver disease: calcium signaling and induction of inflammation.Purinergic signalling · 2025Review
- Dual hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion of the liver reduces post-transplant biliary complications: a retrospective cohort study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2024Article
- Toward a Reconceptualization of Stem Cells from Cellular Plasticity.International journal of stem cells · 2019Article
- Comparison of gene expression in liver regeneration and hepatocellular carcinoma formation.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Under normal homeostatic conditions, hepatocyte renewal is a slow process and complete turnover likely takes at least a year. Studies of hepatocyte regeneration after a two-thirds partial hepatectomy (2/3 PH) have strongly suggested that periportal hepatocytes are the driving force behind regenerative re-population, but recent murine studies have brought greater complexity to the issue. Although periportal hepatocytes are still considered pre-eminent in the response to 2/3 PH, new studies suggest that normal homeostatic renewal is driven by pericentral hepatocytes under the control of Wnts, while pericentral injury provokes the clonal expansion of a subpopulation of periportal hepatocytes expressing low levels of biliary duct genes such as Sox9 and osteopontin. Furthermore, some clarity has been given to the debate on the ability of biliary-derived hepatic progenitor cells to generate physiologically meaningful numbers of hepatocytes in injury models, demonstrating that under appropriate circumstances these cells can re-populate the whole liver.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.