Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40716172›Full record

ReviewSeminars in cell & developmental biology2025

Start early and pack light: Collaborative adventures in theory and experiment.

Erin L Barnhart, Elena F Koslover

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in cell & developmental 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

2 authors.

Erin L BarnhartDepartment of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, United States of America.
Elena F KosloverDepartment of Physics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, United States of America. Electronic address: ekoslover@ucsd.edu.

Funding

How Do Neurons Maintain Mitochondrial Homeostasis in Vivo?R01NS121179 · NINDS · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI Erin L Barnhart · 2022 to 2026
$2.0M
NIH HHS R01NS121179NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS121179
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collaboration between experimental and theoretical work is crucial to unraveling the complexity of living systems. To be productive, such collaborations require some often-scarce resources: most importantly, the time, manpower, and perseverance to iterate through multiple model formulations and experimental measurements. We argue that much can be learned from models which are highly simplified and initially 'wrong' or inconsistent with observations, and that the goal of theory in biology should not be primarily to provide a fit to existent experimental data. Instead, theoretical models should shed light on the key features of the system, providing insight on the missing pieces in our conceptual pictures and suggesting new measurements which can help fill in the gaps. Here, we describe a case-study from our own collaborative experience, focused on understanding the distribution of mitochondria in dendritic arbors. This story proceeded in an iterative manner from initial observations of dendritic structure and mitochondrial dynamics, to the construction of simple models, and back to original measurements and model refinement. Along the way, we came to appreciate some general principles for productive theory - experiment collaboration, which we proceed to highlight here.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorModels, BiologicalAnimalsDendritesHumansMitochondriaCell BiologyMitochondriaNeuronal structurePhysical modeling

Identifiers

PMID40716172
PMCPMC13525903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.