Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30159421›Full record

ReviewNon-coding RNA research2017

Non-coding RNAs in skeletal muscle regeneration.

Tristan J M Gonçalves, Anne-Sophie Armand

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Non-coding RNA research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Long non-coding RNAs involved inNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Skeletal muscle: A review of molecular structure and function, in health and disease.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Systems biology and medicine · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tristan J M GonçalvesInstitut Necker-Enfants Malades, Inserm, U1151, 14 rue Maria Helena Vieira Da Silva, CS 61431, Paris, F-75014, France.
Anne-Sophie ArmandInstitut Necker-Enfants Malades, Inserm, U1151, 14 rue Maria Helena Vieira Da Silva, CS 61431, Paris, F-75014, France.
Délégation Paris 5 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following injury, skeletal muscles can regenerate from muscle specific stem cells, called satellite cells. Quiescent in uninjured muscles, satellite cells become activated, proliferate and differentiate into myotubes. Muscle regeneration occurs following distinct main overlapping phases, including inflammation, regeneration and maturation of the regenerated myofibers. Each step of muscle regeneration is orchestrated through complex signaling networks and gene regulatory networks, leading to the expression of specific set of genes in each concerned cell type. Apart from the well-established transcriptional mechanisms involving the myogenic regulatory factors of the MyoD family, increasing data indicate that each step of muscle regeneration is controlled by a wide range of non-coding RNAs. In this review, we discuss the role of two classes of non-coding RNAs (microRNAs and long non-coding RNAs) in the inflammatory, regeneration and maturation steps of muscle regeneration.

Indexed as

DifferentiationlncRNAmiRNAMuscle regenerationMyoDSatellite cells

Identifiers

PMID30159421
PMCPMC6096429
OpenAlexW2600508495

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.