Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33526076›Full record

ArticleNeural development2021

Cellular response to spinal cord injury in regenerative and non-regenerative stages in Xenopus laevis.

Gabriela Edwards-Faret, Karina González-Pinto, Arantxa Cebrián-Silla, Johany Peñailillo, José Manuel García-Verdugo, Juan Larraín

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neural development, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Transcriptomics Insights into Spinal Cord Injury for Therapy Development.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Spinal Cord Regeneration in Xenopus.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  5. MicroRNAs in Tissue Regeneration: Lessons from Animal Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Biology · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Mitochondrial function in spinal cord injury and regeneration.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gabriela Edwards-FaretCenter for Aging and Regeneration, Departamento de Biología Celular y Molecular, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Alameda 340, Santiago, Chile.
Karina González-PintoCenter for Aging and Regeneration, Departamento de Biología Celular y Molecular, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Alameda 340, Santiago, Chile.
Arantxa Cebrián-SillaLaboratorio de Neurobiología Comparada, Instituto Cavanilles, Universidad de Valencia, CIBERNED, 46980, Valencia, Spain.
Johany PeñaililloCenter for Aging and Regeneration, Departamento de Biología Celular y Molecular, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Alameda 340, Santiago, Chile.
José Manuel García-VerdugoLaboratorio de Neurobiología Comparada, Instituto Cavanilles, Universidad de Valencia, CIBERNED, 46980, Valencia, Spain.
Juan LarraínCenter for Aging and Regeneration, Departamento de Biología Celular y Molecular, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Alameda 340, Santiago, Chile. jlarrain@bio.puc.cl.
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile · CLUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe efficient regenerative abilities at larvae stages followed by a non-regenerative response after metamorphosis in froglets makes Xenopus an ideal model organism to understand the cellular responses leading to spinal cord regeneration.

methodsWe compared the cellular response to spinal cord injury between the regenerative and non-regenerative stages of Xenopus laevis. For this analysis, we used electron microscopy, immunofluorescence and histological staining of the extracellular matrix. We generated two transgenic lines: i) the reporter line with the zebrafish GFAP regulatory regions driving the expression of EGFP, and ii) a cell specific inducible ablation line with the same GFAP regulatory regions. In addition, we used FACS to isolate EGFP

resultsIn regenerative stage animals, spinal cord regeneration triggers a rapid sealing of the injured stumps, followed by proliferation of cells lining the central canal, and formation of rosette-like structures in the ablation gap. In addition, the central canal is filled by cells with similar morphology to the cells lining the central canal, neurons, axons, and even synaptic structures. Regeneration is almost completed after 20 days post injury. In non-regenerative stage animals, mostly damaged tissue was observed, without clear closure of the stumps. The ablation gap was filled with fibroblast-like cells, and deposition of extracellular matrix components. No reconstruction of the spinal cord was observed even after 40 days post injury. Cellular markers analysis confirmed these histological differences, a transient increase of vimentin, fibronectin and collagen was detected in regenerative stages, contrary to a sustained accumulation of most of these markers, including chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans in the NR-stage. The zebrafish GFAP transgenic line was validated, and we have demonstrated that is a very reliable and new tool to study the role of neural stem progenitor cells (NSPCs). RNASeq of GFAP::EGFP cells has allowed us to clearly demonstrate that indeed these cells are NSPCs. On the contrary, the GFAP::EGFP transgene is mainly expressed in astrocytes in non-regenerative stages. During regenerative stages, spinal cord injury activates proliferation of NSPCs, and we found that are mainly differentiated into neurons and glial cells. Specific ablation of these cells abolished proper regeneration, confirming that NSPCs cells are necessary for functional regeneration of the spinal cord.

conclusionsThe cellular response to spinal cord injury in regenerative and non-regenerative stages is profoundly different between both stages. A key hallmark of the regenerative response is the activation of NSPCs, which massively proliferate, and are differentiated into neurons to reconstruct the spinal cord. Also very notably, no glial scar formation is observed in regenerative stages, but a transient, glial scar-like structure is formed in non-regenerative stage animals.

Indexed as

Neural Stem CellsSpinal Cord InjuriesSpinal Cord RegenerationAnimalsSpinal CordXenopus laevisZebrafishGfapGlial scarNeurogenesisNSPCsRegenerationsox2Spinal cordXenopus

Identifiers

PMID33526076
PMCPMC7852093
OpenAlexW3128706811

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.