Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28747491›Full record

ReviewEMBO reports2017

Animal regeneration: ancestral character or evolutionary novelty?

Jonathan Mw Slack

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EMBO reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. IsJournal of developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The salamander blastema within the broader context of metazoan regeneration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Animal regeneration in the era of transcriptomics.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

1 author.

Jonathan Mw SlackDepartment of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK slack017@umn.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7154-6778

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An old question about regeneration is whether it is an ancestral character which is a general property of living matter, or whether it represents a set of specific adaptations to the different circumstances faced by different types of animal. In this review, some recent results on regeneration are assessed to see if they can throw any new light on this question. Evidence in favour of an ancestral character comes from the role of Wnt and bone morphogenetic protein signalling in controlling the pattern of whole-body regeneration in acoels, which are a basal group of bilaterian animals. On the other hand, there is some evidence for adaptive acquisition or maintenance of the regeneration of appendages based on the occurrence of severe non-lethal predation, the existence of some novel genes in regenerating organisms, and differences at the molecular level between apparently similar forms of regeneration. It is tentatively concluded that whole-body regeneration is an ancestral character although has been lost from most animal lineages. Appendage regeneration is more likely to represent a derived character resulting from many specific adaptations.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalBiological EvolutionRegenerationAnimalsBone Morphogenetic ProteinsGene Expression RegulationSignal TransductionWnt Signaling PathwayBone Morphogenetic Proteinsadaptationbone morphogenetic proteinregenerationWnt

Identifiers

PMID28747491
PMCPMC5579372

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.