Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40097296›Full record

ReviewIntegrative and comparative biology2025

Investigating the evolution and features of regeneration using cnidarians.

Aide Macias-Muñoz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrative and comparative biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Aide Macias-MuñozDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to regenerate can greatly vary between animal groups and cell types. Some of the outstanding questions in the field of regeneration include: (1) How has regeneration evolved? and (2) What features underlie differences in regeneration potential between animals? Whether regeneration evolved once and diversified or if it evolved multiple times independently by co-opting similar pathways remains unknown. Current research seeks to identify conserved cellular and molecular features that allow for regeneration. However, comparisons between distantly related regenerating animals have revealed a large amount of diversity. In this perspective, I review discussions on the mechanisms, cell types, and genes underlying regeneration. I propose using Cnidaria as a group in which to investigate the evolution of regeneration. As the sister group to Bilateria with notable regenerative capacity, studies in Cnidaria offer insights into the evolutionary history and conservation of regenerative mechanisms. I then highlight how genome-wide studies, single-cell genomics, multi-omics, and gene editing can be used to identify cell types and unknown features of regeneration. Applying these approaches across organisms will give insight into the cell and molecular features that allow for regeneration competency and may be used to alter an organism's regeneration potential.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionCnidariaRegenerationAnimals

Identifiers

PMID40097296
PMCPMC12464823

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.