ArticleGene expression2017
Article in Gene expression, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting TOMM40 and TOMM22 to Rescue Statin-Impaired Mitochondrial Function, Dynamics, and Mitophagy in Skeletal Myotubes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- JCAD deficiency attenuates activation of hepatic stellate cells and cholestatic fibrosis.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2024Article
- Article
- All routes lead to Rome: multifaceted origin of hepatocytes during liver regeneration.Cell regeneration (London, England) · 2021Review
- The role of macrophages during acute kidney injury: destruction and repair.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Review
- Loss of Wnt Secretion by Macrophages Promotes Hepatobiliary Injury after Administration of 3,5-Diethoxycarbonyl-1, 4-Dihydrocollidine Diet.The American journal of pathology · 2019Article
- Macrophages in Zebrafish Models of Liver Diseases.Frontiers in immunology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The liver has a highly regenerative capacity. In the normal liver, hepatocytes proliferate to restore lost liver mass. However, when hepatocyte proliferation is impaired, biliary epithelial cells (BECs) activate and contribute to hepatocytes. We previously reported in zebrafish that upon severe hepatocyte ablation, BECs extensively contribute to regenerated hepatocytes. It was also speculated that BEC-driven liver regeneration might occur in another zebrafish liver injury model in which temporary knockdown of the mitochondrial import gene tomm22 by morpholino antisense oligonucleotides (MO) induces hepatocyte death. Given the importance of multiple BEC-driven liver regeneration models for better elucidating the mechanisms underlying innate liver regeneration in the diseased liver, we hypothesized that BECs would contribute to hepatocytes in tomm22 MO-injected larvae. In this MO-based liver injury model, by tracing the lineage of BECs, we found that BECs significantly contributed to hepatocytes. Moreover, we found that surviving, preexisting hepatocytes become BEC-hepatocyte hybrid cells in tomm22 MO-injected larvae. Intriguingly, both the inhibition of Wnt/β-catenin signaling and macrophage ablation suppressed the formation of the hybrid hepatocytes. This new liver injury model in which both hepatocytes and BECs contribute to regenerated hepatocytes will aid in better understanding the mechanisms of innate liver regeneration in the diseased 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.