Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37819938›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2023

Transcriptomic comparison of two selective retinal cell ablation paradigms in zebrafish reveals shared and cell-specific regenerative responses.

Kevin Emmerich, Steven L Walker, Guohua Wang, David T White, Anneliese Ceisel, Fang Wang, Yong Teng, Zeeshaan Chunawala, Gianna Graziano, Saumya Nimmagadda and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kevin EmmerichDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0088-1333
Steven L WalkerDepartment of Cellular Biology and Anatomy, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, United States of America.
Guohua WangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
David T WhiteDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Anneliese CeiselDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Fang WangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Yong TengDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Zeeshaan ChunawalaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Gianna GrazianoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Saumya NimmagaddaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Meera T SaxenaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Jiang QianDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Jeff S MummDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2575-287X
Johns Hopkins University · USAugusta University · USEmory University · US

Funding

Wilmer Core Grant for Vision ResearchP30EY001765 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI JEFFREY MUMM · 1985 to 2026
$22.1M
Visual Science Training ProgramT32EY007143 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Laura Ensign, JEREMY NATHANS · 1995 to 2026
$6.2M
Genetic and Chemical Screens for Factors Regulating Retinal RegenerationR01EY022810 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MUMM, JEFFREY · 2013 to 2017
$2.1M
Novel models of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders enabling systematic investigation of the therapeutic potential of transplanted hiPSC-derived cells and endogenous adult neural stem cellsR01OD020376 · OD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MUMM, JEFFREY · 2016 to 2020
$2.1M
High-throughput Phenotypic Screening (HPS) Platform for Large-scale Drug Discovery in Whole-organism and Human Organoid-based Disease ModelsS10OD026909 · OD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MUMM, JEFFREY · 2020 to 2020
$1.9M
Innate immune system regulation of retinal regenerationR01EY033009 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MUMM, JEFFREY · 2022 to 2024
$1.3M
Identification of Cellular, Molecular and Genetic Factors Regulating RGC RegenerationF31EY032790 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI EMMERICH, KEVIN · 2021 to 2024
$112k
Genetic Circuitry of Cell-specific Retinal Neuron RegenerationF31EY021713 · NEI · AUGUSTA UNIVERSITY · PI WALKER, STEVEN LESTER · 2012 to 2014
$71k
NEI NIH HHS F31 EY021713NEI NIH HHS F31 EY032790NEI NIH HHS P30 EY001765NEI NIH HHS R01 EY022810NEI NIH HHS R01 EY033009NEI NIH HHS T32 EY007143NIH HHS R01 OD020376NIH HHS S10 OD026909
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retinal Müller glia (MG) can act as stem-like cells to generate new neurons in both zebrafish and mice. In zebrafish, retinal regeneration is innate and robust, resulting in the replacement of lost neurons and restoration of visual function. In mice, exogenous stimulation of MG is required to reveal a dormant and, to date, limited regenerative capacity. Zebrafish studies have been key in revealing factors that promote regenerative responses in the mammalian eye. Increased understanding of how the regenerative potential of MG is regulated in zebrafish may therefore aid efforts to promote retinal repair therapeutically. Developmental signaling pathways are known to coordinate regeneration following widespread retinal cell loss. In contrast, less is known about how regeneration is regulated in the context of retinal degenerative disease, i.e., following the loss of specific retinal cell types. To address this knowledge gap, we compared transcriptomic responses underlying regeneration following targeted loss of rod photoreceptors or bipolar cells. In total, 2,531 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified, with the majority being paradigm specific, including during early MG activation phases, suggesting the nature of the injury/cell loss informs the regenerative process from initiation onward. For example, early modulation of Notch signaling was implicated in the rod but not bipolar cell ablation paradigm and components of JAK/STAT signaling were implicated in both paradigms. To examine candidate gene roles in rod cell regeneration, including several immune-related factors, CRISPR/Cas9 was used to create G0 mutant larvae (i.e., "crispants"). Rod cell regeneration was inhibited in stat3 crispants, while mutating stat5a/b, c7b and txn accelerated rod regeneration kinetics. These data support emerging evidence that discrete responses follow from selective retinal cell loss and that the immune system plays a key role in regulating "fate-biased" regenerative processes.

Indexed as

TranscriptomeZebrafishAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedCell ProliferationMammalsMiceNeuronsRetina

Identifiers

PMID37819938
PMCPMC10593236
OpenAlexW4387526430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.