ArticleMolecular medicine reports2021
Size changes in miR‑21 knockout mice: Geometric morphometrics on teeth, alveolar bone and mandible.
Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- MicroRNAs in maxillofacial bone modeling and remodeling: implications for malocclusion development and orthodontic treatment.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- MicroRNA-21 deficiency suppresses prostate cancer progression through downregulation of the IRS1-SREBP-1 signaling pathway.Cancer letters · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
MicroRNA‑21 (miR‑21) is a small non‑coding RNA that is differentially expressed during tooth development, particularly during amelogenesis. Although orthodontic tooth movement and the innate immune response are impaired, miR‑21 knockout mice demonstrate no obvious skeletal phenotype. However, the consequence of miR‑21 knockout on tooth phenotype and corresponding alveolar bone is unknown. The current study utilized landmark‑based geometric morphometrics to identify anatomical dissimilarities of the three lower and upper molars, and the corresponding alveolar bone, in miR‑21 knockout and wild‑type control mice. The anatomical structures were visualized by microcomputer tomography. A total of 36 and 38 landmarks were placed on mandibular and maxillary molars, respectively. For the alveolar bone, 16 landmarks were selected on both anatomical sites. General Procrustes analysis revealed significantly smaller molars and dimensions of the alveolar bone in the mandible of the miR‑21 knockout mice when compared with wild‑type controls (P=0.03 and P=0.04, respectively). The overall dimension of the mandible was reduced by the lack of miR‑21 (P=0.02). In the maxilla, the dimension of the alveolar bone was significant (P=0.02); however, this was not observed in the molars (P=0.36). Based on principal component analysis, no changes in shape for any of the anatomical sites were observed. Dental and skeletal jaw length were calculated and no prognathism was identified. However, the fluctuating asymmetry of the molars in the mandible and the maxilla was reduced in the miR‑21 knockout mice by 38 and 27%, respectively. Taken together, the results of the present study revealed that the molars in the mandible and the dimension of the respective alveolar bone were smaller in miR‑21 mice compared with wild‑type littermates, suggesting that miR‑21 influences tooth development.
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.