Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37945686›Full record

ReviewCommunications biology2023

Enduring questions in regenerative biology and the search for answers.

Ashley W Seifert, Elizabeth M Duncan, Ricardo M Zayas

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communications biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Repair Manual of a Fruit Fly Brain.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Signal control during tissue regeneration in adult animals.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2026
    Review
  3. Macroscopic Markers of Dolphin Healing at Sea Linked to Immunity.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. eLife · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Complex tissue regeneration inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ashley W SeifertDepartment of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA. awseifert@uky.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6576-3664
Elizabeth M DuncanDepartment of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA. Elizabeth.Duncan@uky.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2003-6417
Ricardo M ZayasDepartment of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 92182, USA. rzayas@sdsu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6272-0519
University of Kentucky · USSan Diego State University · US

Funding

Macrophage phenotype orchestrates mammalian tissue regenerationR01AR070313 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI Ashley Winn Seifert · 2017 to 2026
$3.3M
The role of muscle contraction in gene activation and tissue regenerationR35GM142679 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI DUNCAN, ELIZABETH MARIE · 2021 to 2025
$2.0M
Molecular mechanisms underlying sensory neuron regeneration and functionR01GM135657 · NIGMS · SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ZAYAS, RICARDO M. · 2020 to 2023
$1.8M
Characterizing T cell contribution to the injury microenvironment during tissue regeneration in African spiny mouseR21DE028070 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI SEIFERT, ASHLEY WINN · 2019 to 2020
$421k
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR070313NIDCR NIH HHS R21 DE028070NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM135657NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM142679
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential for basic research to uncover the inner workings of regenerative processes and produce meaningful medical therapies has inspired scientists, clinicians, and patients for hundreds of years. Decades of studies using a handful of highly regenerative model organisms have significantly advanced our knowledge of key cell types and molecular pathways involved in regeneration. However, many questions remain about how regenerative processes unfold in regeneration-competent species, how they are curtailed in non-regenerative organisms, and how they might be induced (or restored) in humans. Recent technological advances in genomics, molecular biology, computer science, bioengineering, and stem cell research hold promise to collectively provide new experimental evidence for how different organisms accomplish the process of regeneration. In theory, this new evidence should inform the design of new clinical approaches for regenerative medicine. A deeper understanding of how tissues and organs regenerate will also undoubtedly impact many adjacent scientific fields. To best apply and adapt these new technologies in ways that break long-standing barriers and answer critical questions about regeneration, we must combine the deep knowledge of developmental and evolutionary biologists with the hard-earned expertise of scientists in mechanistic and technical fields. To this end, this perspective is based on conversations from a workshop we organized at the Banbury Center, during which a diverse cross-section of the regeneration research community and experts in various technologies discussed enduring questions in regenerative biology. Here, we share the questions this group identified as significant and unanswered, i.e., known unknowns. We also describe the obstacles limiting our progress in answering these questions and how expanding the number and diversity of organisms used in regeneration research is essential for deepening our understanding of regenerative capacity. Finally, we propose that investigating these problems collaboratively across a diverse network of researchers has the potential to advance our field and produce unexpected insights into important questions in related areas of biology and medicine.

Indexed as

RegenerationRegenerative MedicineBiologyHumans

Identifiers

PMID37945686
PMCPMC10636051
OpenAlexW4388519839

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.