ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Transcriptomic landscape around wound bed defines regenerative versus non-regenerative outcomes in mouse digit amputation.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the mouse distal terminal phalanx (P3), it remains mystery why amputation at less than 33% of the digit results in regeneration, while amputation exceeding 67% leads to non-regeneration. Unraveling the molecular mechanisms underlying this disparity could provide crucial insights for regenerative medicine. In this study, we aim to investigate the tissues within the wound bed to understand the tissue microenvironment associated with regenerative versus non-regenerative outcomes. We employed a P3-specific amputation model in mice, integrated with time-series RNA-seq and a macrophage assay challenged with pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, to explore these mechanisms. Our findings revealed that non-regenerative digits exhibit a greater intense early transcriptional response in the wound bed compared to regenerative ones. Furthermore, early macrophage phenotypes differ distinctly between regenerative and non-regenerative outcomes. Regenerative digits also display unique co-expression modules related to Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 (Bmp2). The differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between regenerative and non-regenerative digits are enriched in targets of several transcription factors, such as HOXA11 and HOXD11 from the HOX gene family, showing a time-dependent pattern of enrichment. These transcription factors, known for their roles in bone regeneration, skeletal patterning, osteoblast activity, fracture healing, angiogenesis, and key signaling pathways, may act as master regulators of the regenerative gene signatures. Additionally, we developed a deep learning AI model capable of predicting post-amputation time and level from RNA-seq data, indicating that the regenerative probability may be "encoded" in the transcriptomic response to amputation.
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.