Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33950316›Full record

ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2021

Cardiac regenerative capacity: an evolutionary afterthought?

Phong D Nguyen, Dennis E M de Bakker, Jeroen Bakkers

Abstract 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. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Cell Hypertrophy: A "Biophysical Roadblock" to Reversing Kidney Injury.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Article
  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

3 authors.

Phong D Nguyen *Hubrecht Institute-KNAW and University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Dennis E M de Bakker *Hubrecht Institute-KNAW and University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Jeroen BakkersHubrecht Institute-KNAW and University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. j.bakkers@hubrecht.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9418-0422

Funding

cardiovasculair onderzoek Nederland CVON2019-002 OUTREACHEuropean Molecular Biology Organization ALTF1129-2015Human Frontier Science Program LT001404/2017-LNederlandse hartstichting 2013T091Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 016.186.017-3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiac regeneration is the outcome of the highly regulated interplay of multiple processes, including the inflammatory response, cardiomyocyte dedifferentiation and proliferation, neovascularization and extracellular matrix turnover. Species-specific traits affect these injury-induced processes, resulting in a wide variety of cardiac regenerative potential between species. Indeed, while mammals are generally considered poor regenerators, certain amphibian and fish species like the zebrafish display robust regenerative capacity post heart injury. The species-specific traits underlying these differential injury responses are poorly understood. In this review, we will compare the injury induced processes of the mammalian and zebrafish heart, describing where these processes overlap and diverge. Additionally, by examining multiple species across the animal kingdom, we will highlight particular traits that either positively or negatively affect heart regeneration. Last, we will discuss the possibility of overcoming regeneration-limiting traits to induce heart regeneration in mammals.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionRegenerationAnimalsHeartHeart DiseasesHumansMyocytes, CardiacCardiomyocyteEvolutionExtracellular matrixInflammatory responseProliferationRegenerationRepairScar

Identifiers

PMID33950316
PMCPMC8254703

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.