Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32042146›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2020

Improved tools to study astrocytes.

Xinzhu Yu, Jun Nagai, Baljit S Khakh

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 186 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
186citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

186 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. [Sulforaphane reduces reactive astrocyte-mediated neuron apoptosisNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

126 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

3 authors.

Xinzhu Yu *Department of Physiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jun Nagai *Department of Physiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Baljit S KhakhDepartment of Physiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. bkhakh@mednet.ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0939-1218

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Astrocytes are a type of glial cell that tile the CNS. They interact with multiple cell types, including neurons, glial cells and blood vessels, and are involved or implicated in brain disorders. Progress has been made in understanding astrocytes, but the field lacks detailed information concerning how they perform their multifarious functions, and how and when they influence the operations of the neural circuits with which they interact. One recognized bottleneck to progress has been the paucity of reliable tools with which to explore astrocytes within the adult vertebrate CNS in vivo. However, improved tools for molecular, genetic, morphological and physiological assessments have been developed recently or have been adapted from their original purposes to study neurons and are now being used to systematically document and interrogate astrocyte biology in vivo. These tools, their uses and limitations, and the insights that they afford are summarized in this Review.

Indexed as

AnimalsAstrocytesCalcium SignalingElectrophysiologyGene Expression ProfilingGene TargetingHumansNeurosciencesProteomics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.