Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34680510›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2021

Macrophage Identification In Situ.

Krisztina Nikovics, Anne-Laure Favier

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors.

Krisztina NikovicsImagery Unit, Department of Platforms and Technology Research, French Armed Forces Biomedical Research Institute, 91223 Brétigny-sur-Orge, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5933-2446
Anne-Laure FavierImagery Unit, Department of Platforms and Technology Research, French Armed Forces Biomedical Research Institute, 91223 Brétigny-sur-Orge, France.

Funding

Délégation Générale de l'Armement PDH2-NRBC-4-NR-4306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the processes of inflammation and tissue regeneration after injury is of great importance. For a long time, macrophages have been known to play a central role during different stages of inflammation and tissue regeneration. However, the molecular and cellular mechanisms by which they exert their effects are as yet mostly unknown. While in vitro macrophages have been characterized, recent progress in macrophage biology studies revealed that macrophages in vivo exhibited distinctive features. Actually, the precise characterization of the macrophages in vivo is essential to develop new healing treatments and can be approached via in situ analyses. Nowadays, the characterization of macrophages in situ has improved significantly using antigen surface markers and cytokine secretion identification resulting in specific patterns. This review aims for a comprehensive overview of different tools used for in situ macrophage identification, reporter genes, immunolabeling and in situ hybridization, discussing their advantages and limitations.

Indexed as

cytokinesimmunolabelingin situ hybridizationmacrophagesphenotype

Identifiers

PMID34680510
PMCPMC8533306
OpenAlexW3204928799

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.