Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33672842›Full record

ReviewCells2021

Cellular Mechanisms Participating in Brain Repair of Adult Zebrafish and Mammals after Injury.

Batoul Ghaddar, Luisa Lübke, David Couret, Sepand Rastegar, Nicolas Diotel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Compromised blood-brain barrier in traumatic brain injury model ofIranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  9. Transcriptomic identification and developmental mapping ofTurkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Aging: the wound that never starts healing.Nature communications · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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

5 authors.

Batoul GhaddarUniversité de La Réunion, INSERM, UMR 1188, Diabète athérothrombose Thérapies Réunion Océan Indien (DéTROI), 97400 Saint-Denis de La Réunion, France.
Luisa LübkeInstitute of Biological and Chemical Systems-Biological Information Processing (IBCS-BIP), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Postfach 3640, 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany.
David CouretUniversité de La Réunion, INSERM, UMR 1188, Diabète athérothrombose Thérapies Réunion Océan Indien (DéTROI), 97400 Saint-Denis de La Réunion, France.
Sepand RastegarInstitute of Biological and Chemical Systems-Biological Information Processing (IBCS-BIP), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Postfach 3640, 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4411-5646
Nicolas DiotelUniversité de La Réunion, INSERM, UMR 1188, Diabète athérothrombose Thérapies Réunion Océan Indien (DéTROI), 97400 Saint-Denis de La Réunion, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adult neurogenesis is an evolutionary conserved process occurring in all vertebrates. However, striking differences are observed between the taxa, considering the number of neurogenic niches, the neural stem cell (NSC) identity, and brain plasticity under constitutive and injury-induced conditions. Zebrafish has become a popular model for the investigation of the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in adult neurogenesis. Compared to mammals, the adult zebrafish displays a high number of neurogenic niches distributed throughout the brain. Furthermore, it exhibits a strong regenerative capacity without scar formation or any obvious disabilities. In this review, we will first discuss the similarities and differences regarding (i) the distribution of neurogenic niches in the brain of adult zebrafish and mammals (mainly mouse) and (ii) the nature of the neural stem cells within the main telencephalic niches. In the second part, we will describe the cascade of cellular events occurring after telencephalic injury in zebrafish and mouse. Our study clearly shows that most early events happening right after the brain injury are shared between zebrafish and mouse including cell death, microglia, and oligodendrocyte recruitment, as well as injury-induced neurogenesis. In mammals, one of the consequences following an injury is the formation of a glial scar that is persistent. This is not the case in zebrafish, which may be one of the main reasons that zebrafish display a higher regenerative capacity.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainCell DifferentiationNerve RegenerationNeural Stem CellsNeurogenesisNeuronsZebrafishadult neurogenesisbrain injurymiceneural stem cellregenerationstrokezebrafish

Identifiers

PMID33672842
PMCPMC7917790

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.