ArticleCells2023
Comprehensive Characterization of Tissues Derived from Animals at Different Regenerative Stages: A Comparative Analysis between Fetal and Adult Mouse Skin.
Article in Cells, 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.
- Molecular insight into transcriptome profiling of aerobic exercise induced changes in aged skeletal muscle.npj aging · 2026Article
- Acellular dermal matrix in urethral reconstruction.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Review
- Secretome of bovine umbilical vein endothelial cells promote wound healing regeneration on the second degree rat model burn injury.Open veterinary journal · 2023Article
- Molecular Fingerprint Detection Using Raman and Infrared Spectroscopy Technologies for Cancer Detection: A Progress Review.Biosensors · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tissue regeneration capabilities vary significantly throughout an organism's lifespan. For example, mammals can fully regenerate until they reach specific developmental stages, after which they can only repair the tissue without restoring its original architecture and function. The high regenerative potential of fetal stages has been attributed to various factors, such as stem cells, the immune system, specific growth factors, and the presence of extracellular matrix molecules upon damage. To better understand the local differences between regenerative and reparative tissues, we conducted a comparative analysis of skin derived from mice at regenerative and reparative stages. Our findings show that both types of skin differ in their molecular composition, structure, and functionality. We observed a significant increase in cellular density, nucleic acid content, neutral lipid density, Collagen III, and glycosaminoglycans in regenerative skin compared with reparative skin. Additionally, regenerative skin had significantly higher porosity, metabolic activity, water absorption capacity, and elasticity than reparative skin. Finally, our results also revealed significant differences in lipid distribution, extracellular matrix pore size, and proteoglycans between the two groups. This study provides comprehensive data on the molecular and structural clues that enable full tissue regeneration in fetal stages, which could aid in developing new biomaterials and strategies for tissue engineering and regeneration.
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.