ArticleNPJ Regenerative medicine2023
A modified apical resection model with high accuracy and reproducibility in neonatal mouse and rat hearts.
Article in NPJ Regenerative medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- PHGDH Orchestrates Cell Cycle Progression to Drive Cardiomyocyte Proliferation and Myocardial Regeneration via TGF-β/Smad Signalling Pathway.Cell proliferation · 2026Article
- CD4Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2026Article
- Long noncoding RNA LncBAR enhances BRG1 protein to promote cardiomyocyte cell cycle progression and cardiac repair.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2025Article
- NestinJournal of cellular physiology · 2025Article
- Cauterization of the root of the left coronary artery as a straightforward, large and reproducible ischemic injury model in neonatal mice.Lab animal · 2024Review
- Regenerative loss in the animal kingdom as viewed from the mouse digit tip and heart.Developmental biology · 2024Review
- Exercise-Induced miR-210 Promotes Cardiomyocyte Proliferation and Survival and Mediates Exercise-Induced Cardiac Protection against Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of Heart Regeneration: Searching for the Key to Heal the Heart-Part I: Experimental Injury Models to Study Cardiac Regeneration.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neonatal mouse heart can regenerate after left ventricle (LV) apical resection (AR). Since current AR rodent method is accomplished by resecting LV apex until exposure of LV chamber, it is relatively difficult to operate reproducibly. We aimed to develop a modified AR method with high accuracy and reproducibility and to investigate whether cardiac regenerative capacity could be replicated in neonatal rats. For 15% AR of whole heart weight in 1-day-old (P1) neonatal mice, a modified 10 μL pipette tip cut to 0.48 mm in internal diameter was connected to a vacuum pump working at 0.06 ± 0.005 MPa and gently kept in touch with LV apex for nearly but no more than 12 s. LV apex was resected by a single incision adjacent to the pipette tip. The modified AR method in P1 mice achieved cardiac structural and functional recovery at 21 days post resection (dpr). Data from different operators showed smaller variation of resected LV apex and higher reproducibility using the modified AR method. Furthermore, we showed that 5% AR of whole heart weight in P1 neonatal rats using a modified 200 μL pipette tip cut to 0.63 mm in internal diameter led to complete regeneration of LV apex and full preservation of cardiac function at 42 dpr. In conclusion, the modified AR rodent model leads to accurate resection of LV apex with high homogeneity and reproducibility and it is practically convenient for the study of structural, functional, and molecular mechanisms of cardiac regeneration in both neonatal mice and rats.
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.