Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33805549›Full record

ReviewGenes2021

Whole-Body Regeneration in Sponges: Diversity, Fine Mechanisms, and Future Prospects.

Alexander Ereskovsky, Ilya E Borisenko, Fyodor V Bolshakov, Andrey I Lavrov

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rethinking Plasticity in Sponges.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. DNA methylation in invertebrate genomes and cell lineage plasticity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander EreskovskyInstitut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Ecologie Marine et Continentale (IMBE), Aix Marseille University, CNRS, IRD, Station Marine d'Endoume, Rue de la Batterie des Lions, Avignon University, 13007 Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1079-7204
Ilya E BorisenkoDepartment of Embryology, Faculty of Biology, Saint-Petersburg State University, 199034 Saint-Petersburg, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-5575-7639
Fyodor V BolshakovPertsov White Sea Biological Station, Biological Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 119192 Moscow, Russia.
Andrey I LavrovPertsov White Sea Biological Station, Biological Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 119192 Moscow, Russia.
Lomonosov Moscow State University · RUCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRSt Petersburg University · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While virtually all animals show certain abilities for regeneration after an injury, these abilities vary greatly among metazoans. Porifera (Sponges) is basal metazoans characterized by a wide variety of different regenerative processes, including whole-body regeneration (WBR). Considering phylogenetic position and unique body organization, sponges are highly promising models, as they can shed light on the origin and early evolution of regeneration in general and WBR in particular. The present review summarizes available data on the morphogenetic and cellular mechanisms accompanying different types of WBR in sponges. Sponges show a high diversity of WBR, which principally could be divided into (1) WBR from a body fragment and (2) WBR by aggregation of dissociated cells. Sponges belonging to different phylogenetic clades and even to different species and/or differing in the anatomical structure undergo different morphogeneses after similar operations. A common characteristic feature of WBR in sponges is the instability of the main body axis: a change of the organism polarity is described during all types of WBR. The cellular mechanisms of WBR are different across sponge classes, while cell dedifferentiations and transdifferentiations are involved in regeneration processes in all sponges. Data considering molecular regulation of WBR in sponges are extremely scarce. However, the possibility to achieve various types of WBR ensured by common morphogenetic and cellular basis in a single species makes sponges highly accessible for future comprehensive physiological, biochemical, and molecular studies of regeneration processes.

Indexed as

MorphogenesisRegenerationAnimalsPoriferaSignal Transductionbody polaritydifferentiationmorphogenesisPoriferatransdifferentiationwhole-body regeneration

Identifiers

PMID33805549
PMCPMC8066720
OpenAlexW3147581273

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.