Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35192230›Full record

ReviewWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society2022

To regenerate or not to regenerate: Vertebrate model organisms of regeneration-competency and -incompetency.

Can Aztekin, Mekayla A Storer

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Bone and Cartilage Staining for Skeletal Preparations.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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
  18. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Can AztekinSchool of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne.ORCID 0000-0002-6544-9752
Mekayla A StorerDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience and Wellcome-MRC Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne · CHWellcome/MRC Cambridge Stem Cell Institute · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17230Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Why only certain species can regenerate their appendages (e.g. tails and limbs) remains one of the biggest mysteries of nature. Unlike anuran tadpoles and salamanders, humans and other mammals cannot regenerate their limbs, but can only regrow lost digit tips under specific circumstances. Numerous hypotheses have been postulated to explain regeneration-incompetency in mammals. By studying model organisms that show varying regenerative abilities, we now have more opportunities to uncover what contributes to regeneration-incompetency and functionally test which perturbations restore appendage regrowth. Particularly, Xenopus laevis tail and limb, and mouse digit tip model systems exhibit naturally occurring variations in regenerative capacities. Here, we discuss major hypotheses that are suggested to contribute to regeneration-incompetency, and how species with varying regenerative abilities reflect on these hypotheses.

Indexed as

RegenerationWound HealingAnimalsExtremitiesHumansLarvaMammalsMiceXenopus laevis

Identifiers

PMID35192230
PMCPMC7613846
OpenAlexW4213001164

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.