Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29291973›Full record

ReviewDevelopmental biology2018

The blastema and epimorphic regeneration in mammals.

Ashley W Seifert, Ken Muneoka

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Developmental biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Integrin-Alpha-6+ Cells Are Responsible for Blastema Formation During Oral Siphon Regeneration in Ciona robusta.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Mammalian Blastema: Possibility and Potentials.International journal of stem cells · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Specific cell states underlie complex tissue regeneration in spiny mice.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ashley W SeifertDepartment of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, United States. Electronic address: awseifert@uky.edu.
Ken MuneokaDepartment of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, United States. Electronic address: KMuneoka@cvm.tamu.edu.
Texas A&M University · USUniversity of Kentucky · US

Funding

Macrophage phenotype orchestrates mammalian tissue regenerationR01AR070313 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI Ashley Winn Seifert · 2017 to 2026
$3.3M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR070313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studying regeneration in animals where and when it occurs is inherently interesting and a challenging research topic within developmental biology. Historically, vertebrate regeneration has been investigated in animals that display enhanced regenerative abilities and we have learned much from studying organ regeneration in amphibians and fish. From an applied perspective, while regeneration biologists will undoubtedly continue to study poikilothermic animals (i.e., amphibians and fish), studies focused on homeotherms (i.e., mammals and birds) are also necessary to advance regeneration biology. Emerging mammalian models of epimorphic regeneration are poised to help link regenerative biology and regenerative medicine. The regenerating rodent digit tip, which parallels human fingertip regeneration, and the regeneration of large circular defects through the ear pinna in spiny mice and rabbits, provide tractable, experimental systems where complex tissue structures are regrown through blastema formation and morphogenesis. Using these models as examples, we detail similarities and differences between the mammalian blastema and its classical counterpart to arrive at a broad working definition of a vertebrate regeneration blastema. This comparison leads us to conclude that regenerative failure is not related to the availability of regeneration-competent progenitor cells, but is most likely a function of the cellular response to the microenvironment that forms following traumatic injury. Recent studies demonstrating that targeted modification of this microenvironment can restrict or enhance regenerative capabilities in mammals helps provide a roadmap for eventually pushing the limits of human regeneration.

Indexed as

Amputation, SurgicalAnimalsAntlersDeerEar AuricleFinger InjuriesFingersHumansMammalsMiceMorphogenesisMurinaeRegenerationStem CellsToesWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID29291973
PMCPMC5753424
OpenAlexW2777692101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.