Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28250735›Full record

ReviewNeural regeneration research2017

Glial

Maria Losada-Perez, Neale Harrison, Alicia Hidalgo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neural regeneration research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Maria Losada-PerezSchool of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK; Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Neale HarrisonSchool of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK.
Alicia HidalgoSchool of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8041-5764
University of Birmingham · GBUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The glial regenerative response to central nervous system (CNS) injury, although limited, can be harnessed to promote regeneration and repair. Injury provokes the proliferation of ensheathing glial cells, which can differentiate to remyelinate axons, and partially restore function. This response is evolutionarily conserved, strongly implying an underlying genetic mechanism. In mammals, it is elicited by NG2 glia, but most often newly generated cells fail to differentiate. Thus an important goal had been to find out how to promote glial differentiation following the proliferative response. A gene network involving Notch and prospero (pros) controls the balance between glial proliferation and differentiation in flies and mice, and promotes CNS repair at least in fruit-flies. A key missing link had been how to relate the function of NG2 to this gene network. Recent findings by Losada-Perez et al., published in JCB, demonstrated that the Drosophila NG2 homologue kon-tiki (kon) is functionally linked to Notch and pros in glia. By engaging in two feedback loops with Notch and Pros, in response to injury, Kon can regulate both glial cell number and glial shape homeostasis, essential for repair. Drosophila offers powerful genetics to unravel the control of stem and progenitor cells for regeneration and repair.

Indexed as

CNSDrosophilagliainjurykon-tikiNG2regenerationrepair

Identifiers

PMID28250735
PMCPMC5319228
OpenAlexW2581336256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.