ArticleBiology2022
Do Not Lose Your Head Over the Unequal Regeneration Capacity in Prolecithophoran Flatworms.
Article in Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Knockdown-Induced Fasting Phenotypes in Flatworms: Insights into Underlying Mechanisms of Feeding Behavior.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Evolutionary dynamics of whole-body regeneration across planarian flatworms.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
One of the central questions in studying the evolution of regeneration in flatworms remains whether the ancestral flatworm was able to regenerate all body parts, including the head. If so, this ability was subsequently lost in most existent flatworms. The alternative hypothesis is that head regeneration has evolved within flatworms, possibly several times independently. In the well-studied flatworm taxon Tricladida (planarians), most species are able to regenerate a head. Little is known about the regeneration capacity of the closest relatives of Tricladida: Fecampiida and Prolecithophora. Here, we analysed the regeneration capacity of three prolecithophoran families: Pseudostomidae, Plagiostomidae, and Protomonotresidae. The regeneration capacity of prolecithophorans varies considerably between families, which is likely related to the remaining body size of the regenerates. While all studied prolecithophoran species were able to regenerate a tail-shaped posterior end, only some Pseudostomidae could regenerate a part of the pharynx and pharynx pouch. Some Plagiostomidae could regenerate a head including the brain and eyes, provided the roots of the brain were present. The broad spectrum of regeneration capacity in Prolecithophora suggests that head regeneration capacity is not an apomorphy of Adiaphanida.
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.