Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33515282›Full record

ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2021

Animal regeneration in the era of transcriptomics.

Loïc Bideau, Pierre Kerner, Jerome Hui, Michel Vervoort, Eve Gazave

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Ex vivo functional whole organ in biomedical research: a review.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Annelids as models of germ cell and gonad regeneration.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. The sea spiderProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Loïc BideauUniversité de Paris, CNRS, Institut Jacques Monod, 75006, Paris, France.
Pierre KernerUniversité de Paris, CNRS, Institut Jacques Monod, 75006, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4001-0812
Jerome HuiSchool of Life Sciences, Simon F.S. Li Marine Science Laboratory, State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1355-8495
Michel VervoortUniversité de Paris, CNRS, Institut Jacques Monod, 75006, Paris, France. michel.vervoort@ijm.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5995-2140
Eve GazaveUniversité de Paris, CNRS, Institut Jacques Monod, 75006, Paris, France. eve.gazave@ijm.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4647-6640

Funding

Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer PJA 20191209482Labex "Who Am I" ANR- 11-LABX-0071Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer RS20/75-20Procore 2019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal regeneration, the ability to restore a lost body part, is a process that has fascinated scientists for centuries. In this review, we first present what regeneration is and how it relates to development, as well as the widespread and diverse nature of regeneration in animals. Despite this diversity, animal regeneration includes three common mechanistic steps: initiation, induction and activation of progenitors, and morphogenesis. In this review article, we summarize and discuss, from an evolutionary perspective, the recent data obtained for a variety of regeneration models which have allowed to identify key shared mechanisms that control these main steps of animal regeneration. This review also synthesizes the wealth of high-throughput mRNA sequencing data (bulk mRNA-seq) concerning regeneration which have been obtained in recent years, highlighting the major advances in the regeneration field that these studies have revealed. We stress out that, through a comparative approach, these data provide opportunities to further shed light on the evolution of regeneration in animals. Finally, we point out how the use of single-cell mRNA-seq technology and integration with epigenomic approaches may further help researchers to decipher mechanisms controlling regeneration and their evolution in animals.

Indexed as

RegenerationTranscriptomeAnimalsBiological EvolutionGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMorphogenesisSignal TransductionBulk mRNA-seqEvolutionRegenerationscRNA-seqSignaling pathwaysTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID33515282
PMCPMC11072743

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.