Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28122714›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of physiology. Renal physiology2017

Sleeping beauty: awakening urothelium from its slumber.

Zarine R Balsara, Xue Li

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of physiology. Renal physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. KRT5Stem cell research & therapy · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Mucosa-interfacing electronics.Nature reviews. Materials · 2022
    Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zarine R BalsaraDepartment of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and.
Xue LiDepartment of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and sean.li@childrens.harvard.edu.
Harvard University · US

Funding

Research Training in Pediatric Urology/CHB T32T32DK060442 · NIDDK · CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOSTON · PI ADAM, ROSALYN M · 2002 to 2023
$2.5M
Molecular Basis of Sexually Dimorphic Development of the Genital TubercleR01DK110477 · NIDDK · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI LI, XUE SEAN · 2017 to 2021
$1.9M
Gender Difference in Bladder Cancer SusceptibilityR21CA198544 · NCI · BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI LI, XUE SEAN · 2015 to 2016
$423k
Functional characterizations of the Sdx1 domain during cloacal septationR01DK091645 · NIDDK · BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI LI, XUE SEAN · 2012 to 2012
$144k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA198544NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK091645NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK110477NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK060442
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The bladder urothelium is essentially quiescent but regenerates readily upon injury. The process of urothelial regeneration harkens back to the process of urothelial development whereby urothelial stem/progenitor cells must proliferate and terminally differentiate to establish all three urothelial layers. How the urothelium regulates the level of proliferation and the timing of differentiation to ensure the precise degree of regeneration is of significant interest in the field. Without a carefully-orchestrated process, urothelial regeneration may be inadequate, thereby exposing the host to toxins or pathogens. Alternatively, regeneration may be excessive, thereby setting the stage for tumor development. This review describes our current understanding of urothelial regeneration. The current controversies surrounding the identity and location of urothelial progenitor cells that mediate urothelial regeneration are discussed and evidence for each model is provided. We emphasize the factors that have been shown to be crucial for urothelial regeneration, including local growth factors that stimulate repair, and epithelial-mesenchymal cross talk, which ensures feedback regulation. Also highlighted is the emerging concept of epigenetic regulation of urothelial regeneration, which additionally fine tunes the process through transcriptional regulation of cell cycle genes and growth and differentiation factors. Finally, we emphasize how several of these pathways and/or programs are often dysregulated during malignant transformation, further corroborating their importance in directing normal urothelial regeneration. Together, evidence in the field suggests that any attempt to exploit regenerative programs for the purposes of enhanced urothelial repair or replacement must take into account this delicate balance.

Indexed as

Cell ProliferationEpithelial-Mesenchymal TransitionRegenerationAnimalsBiomarkers, TumorCell Cycle CheckpointsCell DifferentiationCell Transformation, NeoplasticCellular SenescenceEpigenesis, GeneticGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansNeoplastic Stem CellsSignal TransductionTumor MicroenvironmentUrinary BladderBiomarkers, Tumorepigeneticsepithelial-mesenchymal cross talklabel retentionlineage tracingprogenitor cellsregenerationsuperficial cellsurothelium

Identifiers

PMID28122714
PMCPMC5407074
OpenAlexW2581448715

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.