ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2017
Imaging morphogenesis.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Model-based reconstruction of whole organ growth dynamics reveals invariant patterns in leaf morphogenesis.Quantitative plant biology · 2023Article
- Tutorial: using nanoneedles for intracellular delivery.Nature protocols · 2021Review
- An Immobilization Technique for Long-Term Time-Lapse Imaging of ExplantedFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020Article
- Collagen Dynamics During the Process of Osteocyte Embedding and Mineralization.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2019Article
- Taking the strain: quantifying the contributions of all cell behaviours to changes in epithelial shape.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Review
- Systems morphodynamics: understanding the development of tissue hardware.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The hostile environment of the microscope stage poses numerous challenges to successful imaging of morphogenesis in live tissues. This review aims to highlight some of the main practical considerations to take into account when embarking on a project to image cell behaviour in the context of cells' normal surroundings. Scrutiny of these activities is likely to be the most informative approach to understanding mechanical morphogenesis but is often confounded by the substantial technical difficulties involved in imaging samples over extended periods of time. Repeated observation of cells in live tissue requires that strategies be adopted to prioritize the stability of the sample, ensuring that it remains viable and develops normally while being held in a manner accessible to microscopic examination. Key considerations when creating reliable protocols for time-lapse imaging may be broken down into three main criteria; labelling, mounting and image acquisition. Choices and compromises made here, however, will directly influence image quality, and even small refinements can substantially improve what information may be extracted from images. Live imaging of tissue is difficult but paying close attention to the basics along with a little innovation is likely to be well rewarded.This article is part of the themed issue 'Systems morphodynamics: understanding the development of tissue hardware'.
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.