ArticlePeerJ2022
First observations of ovary regeneration in an amphipod,
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Females of the gammaridean amphipod Methods: Histological sections from a second-year female with ovarian atrophy, a female with normal ovaries, a third-year female with ovarian regeneration, as well as testes of an immature and a sexually mature male were compared to determine the sources of cells of the germinal and somatic lines necessary for ovarian regeneration. Results: Ovarian regeneration in the third-year female began with the formation of a new germinal zone from germ cells preserved in the atrophied ovaries and eosinophilic cells of the previously starving second-year female. Eosinophilic cells form the mesodermal component of the germinal zone. A mass of these cells appeared in the second-year female that had atrophied ovaries and in large numbers on the intestine wall of the third-year female with regenerating ovaries. These eosinophilic cells appear to migrate into the regenerating ovaries. Conclusions: All germ cells of the second-year female are not lost during ovarian atrophy and can be involved in subsequent ovarian regeneration. Eosinophilic cells involved in ovarian regeneration are of mesodermal origin. The eosinophilic cell morphologies are similar to those of quiescence cells (cells in a reversible state that do not divide but retain the ability to re-enter cell division and participate in regeneration). These histological data thus indicate that eosinophilic and germ cells of third-year females can participate in the regeneration of the ovaries to reproduce a second brood. The precursors of these third-year females (a small number the second-year females with an asynchronous [summer] breeding period and ovaries that have atrophied due to seasonal starvation) appear to possess sources of somatic and germ cells that are sufficient for ovarian regeneration and that may be adaptations to starvation stress.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.