ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020
Wild-Type Zebrafish (
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Recommendations of the Polish Zebrafish Society on the use of the zebrafish (Acta biochimica Polonica · 2026Review
- Evaluation of natural products bioactivity in cardiovascular diseases utilizing zebrafish models: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Review
- Advances in Zebrafish for Diabetes Mellitus with Wound Model.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Advancing Diabetic Retinopathy Research: Analysis of the Neurovascular Unit in Zebrafish.Cells · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zebrafish have become a popular alternative to higher animals in biomedical and pharmaceutical research. The development of stable mutant lines to model target specific aspects of many diseases, including diabetes, is well reported. However, these mutant lines are much more costly and challenging to maintain than wild-type zebrafish and are simply not an option for many research facilities. As an alternative to address the disadvantages of advanced mutant lines, wild-type larvae may represent a suitable option. In this review, we evaluate organ development in zebrafish larvae and discuss established methods that use wild-type zebrafish larvae up to seven days post fertilization to test for potential drug candidates for diabetes and its commonly associated conditions of oxidative stress and inflammation. This provides an up to date overview of the relevance of wild-type zebrafish larvae as a vertebrate antidiabetic model and confidence as an alternative tool for preclinical studies. We highlight the advantages and disadvantages of established methods and suggest recommendations for future developments to promote the use of zebrafish, specifically larvae, rather than higher animals in the early phase of antidiabetic drug discovery.
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.