Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38665209›Full record

ReviewiScience2024

Reading the palimpsest of cell interactions: What questions may we ask of the data?

Mihaela Pavlicev, Günter P Wagner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Linking tissue morphology and tissue healing in a cell-fate model.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Hallmarks of uterine receptivity predate placental mammals.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Mihaela PavlicevUnit for Theoretical Biology, Department for Evolutionary Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna 1030, Austria.
Günter P WagnerUnit for Theoretical Biology, Department for Evolutionary Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna 1030, Austria.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 33540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological function depends on the composition and structure of the organism, the latter describing the organization of interactions between parts. While cells in multicellular organisms are capable of a remarkable degree of autonomy, most functions do require cell communication: the coordination of functions (growth, differentiation, and apoptosis), the compartmentalization of cellular processes, and the integration of cells into higher levels of structural organization. A wealth of data on putative cell interactions has become available, yet its biological interpretation depends on our expectations about the structure of interaction networks. Here, we attempt to formulate basic questions to ask when interpreting cell interaction data. We build on the understanding that cells fulfill two general functions: the integrity-maintaining and the organismal service function. We derive the expected patterns of cell interactions considering two intertwined aspects: the functional and the evolutionary. Based on these, we propose guidelines for analysis and interpretation of transcriptional cell-interactome data.

Indexed as

Cell biologyMathematical biosciences

Identifiers

PMID38665209
PMCPMC11043885

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.