Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29463955›Full record

ArticleMolecular vision2018

Optic nerve regeneration in the mouse is a complex trait modulated by genetic background.

Jiaxing Wang, Ying Li, Rebecca King, Felix L Struebing, Eldon E Geisert

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular vision, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Monocyte-derived SDF1 supports optic nerve regeneration and alters retinal ganglion cells' response to Pten deletion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Inducible rodent models of glaucoma.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2020
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Different Effect ofFrontiers in genetics · 2018
    Article
  13. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jiaxing WangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Ying LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Rebecca KingDepartment of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Felix L StruebingDepartment of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Eldon E GeisertDepartment of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Emory University · USTianjin Medical University General Hospital · CN

Funding

Implementing a Maternal health and PRegnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone (IMPROVE)UL1TR002378 · NCATS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Andres J Garcia, Elizabeth O. Ofili · 2017 to 2026
$92.1M
P30-Core Grant for Vision Research Core CP30EY006360 · NEI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI NICKERSON, JOHN M · 1986 to 2025
$15.3M
ENNCF - Viral Vector CoreP30NS055077 · NINDS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI LEVEY, ALLAN I · 2008 to 2018
$6.8M
Modulators of Retinal InjuryR01EY017841 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCI CTR · PI GEISERT, ELDON E · 2007 to 2016
$3.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002378NEI NIH HHS P30 EY006360NEI NIH HHS R01 EY017841NINDS NIH HHS P30 NS055077
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The present study is designed to identify the influences of genetic background on optic nerve regeneration using the two parental strains (C57BL/6J and DBA/2J) and seven BXD recombinant inbred mouse strains. Methods: To study regeneration in the optic nerve, Results: The analysis revealed a considerable amount of differential axonal regeneration across the seven BXD strains and the parental strains. There was a statistically significant difference (p=0.014 Mann-Whitney U test) in the regenerative capacity in the number of axons reaching 0.5 mm from a low of 236.1±24.4 axons in the BXD102 mice to a high of 759.8±79.2 axons in the BXD29 mice. There were also statistically significant differences (p=0.014 Mann-Whitney U test) in the distance axons traveled. Looking at a minimum of five axons, the shortest distance was 787.2±46.5 µm in the BXD102 mice, and the maximum distance was 2025.5±223.3 µm in the BXD29 mice. Conclusions: Differences in genetic background can have a profound effect on axonal regeneration causing a threefold increase in the number of regenerating axons at 0.5 mm from the crush site and a 2.5-fold increase in the distance traveled by at least five axons in the damaged optic nerve.

Indexed as

Genetic BackgroundAnimalsAxonsCholera ToxinCrosses, GeneticCyclic AMPDependovirusGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression RegulationGene Knockdown TechniquesGenetic VectorsMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, Inbred DBANerve CrushNerve Regeneration2'-O-methyl-8-(4-chlorophenylthio)cAMPCholera ToxinCyclic AMPPTEN PhosphohydrolasePten protein, mouseThionucleotidesZymosan

Identifiers

PMID29463955
PMCPMC5815339
OpenAlexW2788908583

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.