Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28459075›Full record

ReviewNeurogenesis (Austin, Tex.)2017

A brief history of the study of nerve dependent regeneration.

Johanna E Farkas, James R Monaghan

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurogenesis (Austin, Tex.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Neuronal regulation of bone and tendon injury repair: a focused review.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2024
    Review
  13. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of skin wound healing.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. The salamander blastema within the broader context of metazoan regeneration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  17. Wound Healing Insights from Flies and Fish.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2022
    Review
  18. Voltage-gated sodium channelProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Johanna E FarkasDepartment of Biology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
James R MonaghanDepartment of Biology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Northeastern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nerve dependence is a phenomenon observed across a stunning array of species and tissues. From zebrafish to fetal mice to humans, research across various animal models has shown that nerves are critical for the support of tissue repair and regeneration. Although the study of this phenomenon has persisted for centuries, largely through research conducted in salamanders, the cellular and molecular mechanisms of nerve dependence remain poorly-understood. Here we highlight the near-ubiquity and clinical relevance of vertebrate nerve dependence while providing a timeline of its study and an overview of recent advancements toward understanding the mechanisms behind this process. In presenting a brief history of the research of nerve dependence, we provide both historical and modern context to our recent work on nerve dependent limb regeneration in the Mexican axolotl.

Identifiers

PMID28459075
PMCPMC5402702
OpenAlexW2605773512

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.