ArticleBMC genomics2023
Unravelling the limb regeneration mechanisms of Polypedates maculatus, a sub-tropical frog, by transcriptomics.
Article in BMC genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metamorphosis and lncRNAs: A Close Relationship.Genesis (New York, N.Y. : 2000) · 2026Review
- Programmed cell revival from imminent cell death enhances tissue repair and regeneration.The EMBO journal · 2025Article
- Sall4 regulates downstream patterning genes during limb regeneration.Developmental biology · 2024Article
- The salamander blastema within the broader context of metazoan regeneration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegeneration studies help to understand the strategies that replace a lost or damaged organ and provide insights into approaches followed in regenerative medicine and engineering. Amphibians regenerate their limbs effortlessly and are indispensable models to study limb regeneration. Xenopus and axolotl are the key models for studying limb regeneration but recent studies on non-model amphibians have revealed species specific differences in regeneration mechanisms.
resultsThe present study describes the de novo transcriptome of intact limbs and three-day post-amputation blastemas of tadpoles and froglets of the Asian tree frog Polypedates maculatus, a non-model amphibian species commonly found in India. Differential gene expression analysis between early tadpole and froglet limb blastemas discovered species-specific novel regulators of limb regeneration. The present study reports upregulation of proteoglycans, such as epiphycan, chondroadherin, hyaluronan and proteoglycan link protein 1, collagens 2,5,6, 9 and 11, several tumour suppressors and methyltransferases in the P. maculatus tadpole blastemas. Differential gene expression analysis between tadpole and froglet limbs revealed that in addition to the expression of larval-specific haemoglobin and glycoproteins, an upregulation of cysteine and serine protease inhibitors and downregulation of serine proteases, antioxidants, collagenases and inflammatory genes in the tadpole limbs were essential for creating an environment that would support regeneration. Dermal myeloid cells were GAG+, EPYC+, INMT+, LEF1+ and SALL4+ and seemed to migrate from the unamputated regions of the tadpole limb to the blastema. On the other hand, the myeloid cells of the froglet limb blastemas were few and probably contributed to sustained inflammation resulting in healing.
conclusionsStudies on non-model amphibians give insights into alternate tactics for limb regeneration which can help devise a plethora of methods in regenerative medicine and engineering.
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.