ArticleCell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.)2020
An immunocytochemical approach to the analysis of the cell division cycle in the rat cerebellar neuroepithelium.
Article in Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 5-Bromo-2'-deoxyuridine labeling: historical perspectives, factors influencing the detection, toxicity, and its implications in the neurogenesis.Neural regeneration research · 2024Review
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cerebellar neurons are generated from the rhombic lip and the neuroepithelium. In this study, we analyze the histogenesis of the cerebellar neuroepithelium in terms of cellular kinetics. The experimental animals are the offspring of pregnant dams injected with 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) on embryonic day 13. We infer the fraction of S-phase cells by examining a range of survival times after a single BrdU-exposure and a cumulative BrdU-labeling sequence, which allow for the derivation of cell-cycle parameters and phase durations. The current results indicate that the dose of BrdU employed (35 mg/kg) provides saturation S-phase labeling from at least 1 h after marker delivery. The duration of G2, mitotic phase, and G1 are 1.2, 0.5, and 6.9 h, respectively. The duration for the S-phase, growth fraction, and the whole cycle are obtained on the basis of two proliferative models, steady-state and exponential growth. Both models provided similar results. In conclusion, our results indicate that the steady-state and the cumulative S-phase labeling paradigms can be adopted to analyze cell cycle parameters in the cerebellar neuroepithelium. Current results can help in understanding the regulatory mechanisms of cerebellar histogenesis and the cell biological mechanisms of the proliferative cycle of the neuroepithelium.
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.