Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33455001›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2021

Comparing development and regeneration in the submandibular gland highlights distinct mechanisms.

Lemonia Chatzeli, Tathyane H N Teshima, Mohammad K Hajihosseini, Marcia Gaete, Gordon B Proctor, Abigail S Tucker

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lemonia ChatzeliCentre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2981-0344
Tathyane H N TeshimaCentre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2978-7081
Mohammad K HajihosseiniSchool of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7960-5114
Marcia GaeteCentre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, King's College London, London, UK.
Gordon B ProctorCentre for Host-Microbiome Interactions, King's College of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5684-841X
Abigail S TuckerCentre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8871-6094
King's College London · GBPontificia Universidad Católica de Chile · CLUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A common question in organ regeneration is the extent to which regeneration recapitulates embryonic development. To investigate this concept, we compared the expression of two highly interlinked and essential genes for salivary gland development, Sox9 and Fgf10, during submandibular gland development, homeostasis and regeneration. Salivary gland duct ligation/deligation model was used as a regenerative model. Fgf10 and Sox9 expression changed during regeneration compared to homeostasis, suggesting that these key developmental genes play important roles during regeneration, however, significantly both displayed different patterns of expression in the regenerating gland compared to the developing gland. Regenerating glands, which during homeostasis had very few weakly expressing Sox9-positive cells in the striated/granular ducts, displayed elevated expression of Sox9 within these ducts. This pattern is in contrast to embryonic development, where Sox9 expression was absent in the proximally developing ducts. However, similar to the elevated expression at the distal tip of the epithelium in developing salivary glands, regenerating glands displayed elevated expression in a subpopulation of acinar cells, which during homeostasis expressed Sox9 at lower levels. A shift in expression of Fgf10 was observed from a widespread mesenchymal pattern during organogenesis to a more limited and predominantly epithelial pattern during homeostasis in the adult. This restricted expression in epithelial cells was maintained during regeneration, with no clear upregulation in the surrounding mesenchyme, as might be expected if regeneration recapitulated development. As both Fgf10 and Sox9 were upregulated in proximal ducts during regeneration, this suggests that the positive regulation of Sox9 by Fgf10, essential during development, is partially reawakened during regeneration using this model. Together these data suggest that developmentally important genes play a key role in salivary gland regeneration but do not precisely mimic the roles observed during development.

Indexed as

AnimalsFemaleFibroblast Growth Factor 10Gene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalMaleMiceOrganogenesisRegenerationSOX9 Transcription FactorSubmandibular GlandFgf10 protein, mouseFibroblast Growth Factor 10Sox9 protein, mouseSOX9 Transcription FactoradultductFgf10ligationremodellingrepairSox9

Identifiers

PMID33455001
PMCPMC8128775
OpenAlexW3124323223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.