What's in a (Sub)strain?

Jill M Goldstein, Amy J Wagers

Open access · goldAbstract readLetter

In one paragraph

Article in Stem cell reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

4citing papers in PubMed

0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

Insights and challenges on animal models for progressive multiple sclerosis.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2026
Review
Ndufs4 knockout mouse models of Leigh syndrome: pathophysiology and intervention.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2022
Review
Spontaneous recurrent seizures in an intra-amygdala kainate microinjection model of temporal lobe epilepsy are differentially sensitive to antiseizure drugs.Experimental neurology · 2022
Article
Identifying high-confidence variants in human cytomegalovirus genomes sequenced from clinical samples.Virus evolution · 2022
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jill M GoldsteinDepartment of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA; Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

Amy J WagersDepartment of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA; Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA; Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Electronic address: amy_wagers@harvard.edu.

Harvard Stem Cell Institute · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N inbred mice are widely, and often interchangeably, used for stem cell research; yet, these substrains harbor discrete genetic differences that can cause phenotypic disparities. In this issue of Stem Cell Reports, Morales-Hernández et al. identify one particular difference-disruption of Nicotinamide Nucleotide Transhydrogenase (Nnt)-that increases reactive oxygen exposure and impairs hematopoietic progenitor cell function in C57BL/6J, as compared to C57BL/6N, mice.

Indexed as

AnimalsGenetic MarkersHematopoietic Stem CellsMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, Inbred StrainsNADP TranshydrogenasesPhenotypeGenetic MarkersNADP Transhydrogenases

Identifiers

PMID30110622

DOI10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.07.011

PMCPMC6094162

OpenAlexW2885789930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.