Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34315276›Full record

ArticleOpen biology2021

Appendage regeneration is context dependent at the cellular level.

Can Aztekin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Putative muscle stem cells promoteProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. To regenerate or not to regenerate: Vertebrate model organisms of regeneration-competency and -incompetency.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Can AztekinSchool of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Species that can regrow their lost appendages have been studied with the ultimate aim of developing methods to enable human limb regeneration. These examinations highlight that appendage regeneration progresses through shared tissue stages and gene activities, leading to the assumption that appendage regeneration paradigms (e.g. tails and limbs) are the same or similar. However, recent research suggests these paradigms operate differently at the cellular level, despite sharing tissue descriptions and gene expressions. Here, collecting the findings from disparate studies, I argue appendage regeneration is context dependent at the cellular level; nonetheless, it requires (i) signalling centres, (ii) stem/progenitor cell types and (iii) a regeneration-permissive environment, and these three common cellular principles could be more suitable for cross-species/paradigm/age comparisons.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkersCell DifferentiationCell ProliferationCellular MicroenvironmentGene Expression RegulationHumansRegenerationSignal TransductionStem CellsBiomarkersappendage regenerationcellular levelcross-speciesregenerationsingle-cell-omics

Identifiers

PMID34315276
PMCPMC8316798
OpenAlexW3183275620

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.