ArticleIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal2022
Comparative analysis of the survival and regeneration potential of juvenile and matured earthworm, Eudrilus eugeniae, upon in vivo and in vitro maintenance.
Article in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing ex vivo functional whole-organ prostate gland model for regeneration and drug screening.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing the wound healing potential using earthworm clitellum factors and elucidating its molecular mechanism in an in-vitro and earthworm model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Eudrilus eugeniae is a clitellum-dependent earthworm that requires intact clitellum segments for its survival and regeneration. The present study aims to interconnect the survival and regeneration ability that varies between in vivo and in vitro maintenance upon different sites of amputation. The amputated portion of the worm that possesses intact clitellum (13th-18th segments) survived and had the potential to regenerate, whereas worms with partial or without clitellum segments only survived and were unable to regenerate. Besides segment length and clitellum segments, clitellum factors also determined the survival, blastemal initiation and differentiation potential. The survivability and regeneration potential of worms were augmented upon in vitro maintenance. Notably, the amputated segments (1st-10th segments) and posterior segments of similar length, which usually die within the 4th day in vivo, survived for more than 60 days in vitro but lacked the regeneration ability. On the other hand, the amputated posterior segments (30th to 37th segments) from juvenile worms, maintained in in vitro condition, survived and initiated blastema with multiple buds but lacked the ability to regenerate. Interestingly, the equal half of adult worm blastema that is maintained in in vitro conditions were able to form the blastema-like structure with the help of a unique stick. The anterior blastema failed to retain the regenerative structure but the posterior portion of the amputated blastema, which is also associated with a small portion of the body segment, showed the ability to retain the regenerative structure. Our results conclude that the survivability is enhanced upon in vitro maintenance and this condition favours the adult dedifferentiated blastemal and stem cell-enriched juvenile posterior segments to form a regenerative blastema.
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.