Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29405625›Full record

ArticleStem cells translational medicine2018

Digit Tip Regeneration: Merging Regeneration Biology with Regenerative Medicine.

Connor P Dolan, Lindsay A Dawson, Ken Muneoka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cells translational medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Fundamental and Practical Perspectives in Regenerative Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Digits in a dish: AnFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Healing Mechanisms in Cutaneous Wounds: Tipping the Balance.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Mouse Digit Tip Regeneration Is Mechanical Load Dependent.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Connor P DolanDepartment of Veterinary Physiology & Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Lindsay A DawsonDepartment of Veterinary Physiology & Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Ken MuneokaDepartment of Veterinary Physiology & Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7520-6869

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regeneration Biology is the study of organisms with endogenous regenerative abilities, whereas Regenerative Medicine focuses on engineering solutions for human injuries that do not regenerate. While the two fields are fundamentally different in their approach, there is an obvious interface involving mammalian regeneration models. The fingertip is the only part of the human limb that is regeneration-competent and the regenerating mouse digit tip has emerged as a model to study a clinically relevant regenerative response. In this article, we discuss how studies of digit tip regeneration have identified critical components of the regenerative response, and how an understanding of endogenous regeneration can lead to expanding the regenerative capabilities of nonregenerative amputation wounds. Such studies demonstrate that regeneration-incompetent wounds can respond to treatment with individual morphogenetic agents by initiating a multi-tissue response that culminates in structural regeneration. In addition, the healing process of nonregenerative wounds are found to cycle through nonresponsive, responsive and nonresponsive phases, and we call the responsive phase the Regeneration Window. We also find the responsiveness of mature healed amputation wounds can be reactivated by reinjury, thus nonregenerated wounds retain a potential for regeneration. We propose that regeneration-incompetent injuries possess dormant regenerative potential that can be activated by targeted treatment with specific morphogenetic agents. We believe that future Regenerative Medicine-based-therapies should be designed to promote, not replace, regenerative responses. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2018;7:262-270.

Indexed as

BiologyCell Culture TechniquesHumansRegenerationRegenerative Medicine

Identifiers

PMID29405625
PMCPMC5827737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.