SynthesisCells2020
A Systematic Exposition of Methods used for Quantification of Heart Regeneration after Apex Resection in Zebrafish.
Synthesis in Cells, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of Macrophages in Cardiac Remodeling: Cues From Zebrafish Heart.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- A modular tissue-clearing framework integrated with light-field microscopy enables rapid volumetric phenotyping of cardiac tissue.Research square · 2026Article
- Apex Resection in Zebrafish (International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- J-Shaped Association Between Respiratory Rate and In-Hospital Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Complicated by Congestive Heart Failure in Intensive Care Unit.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myocardial infarction (MI) is a worldwide condition that affects millions of people. This is mainly caused by the adult human heart lacking the ability to regenerate upon injury, whereas zebrafish have the capacity through cardiomyocyte proliferation to fully regenerate the heart following injury such as apex resection (AR). But a systematic overview of the methods used to evidence heart regrowth and regeneration in the zebrafish is lacking. Herein, we conducted a systematical search in Embase and Pubmed for studies on heart regeneration in the zebrafish following injury and identified 47 AR studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Overall, three different methods were used to assess heart regeneration in zebrafish AR hearts. 45 out of 47 studies performed qualitative (37) and quantitative (8) histology, whereas immunohistochemistry for various cell cycle markers combined with cardiomyocyte specific proteins was used in 34 out of 47 studies to determine cardiomyocyte proliferation qualitatively (6 studies) or quantitatively (28 studies). For both methods, analysis was based on selected heart sections and not the whole heart, which may bias interpretations. Likewise, interstudy comparison of reported cardiomyocyte proliferation indexes seems complicated by distinct study designs and reporting manners. Finally, six studies performed functional analysis to determine heart function, a hallmark of human heart injury after MI. In conclusion, our data implies that future studies should consider more quantitative methods eventually taking the 3D of the zebrafish heart into consideration when evidencing myocardial regrowth after AR. Furthermore, standardized guidelines for reporting cardiomyocyte proliferation and sham surgery details may be considered to enable inter study comparisons and robustly determine the effect of given genes on the process of heart regeneration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.