Article in Mediators of inflammation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.
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
12 authors.
Luiz Adriano Damasceno QueirozLaboratory of Immunoendocrinology, Department of Clinical and Toxicological Analyses, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, São Paulo University (FCF/USP), São Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3560-3963
Renata Spalutto FontesBiomodels Research Center of the Faculty of School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Chemistry Institute, São Paulo University (FCF-IQ/USP), São Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6636-9844
Mariana de Araujo OliveiraLaboratory of Immunoendocrinology, Department of Clinical and Toxicological Analyses, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, São Paulo University (FCF/USP), São Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.
Kamilla Costa PantojaLaboratory of Immunoendocrinology, Department of Clinical and Toxicological Analyses, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, São Paulo University (FCF/USP), São Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0311-2791
Josiane Betim AssisLaboratory of Experimental Immunology, Department of Immunology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, São Paulo University (ICB/USP), São Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6549-912X
Ywa Perpetuo Socorro Toda TavaresLaboratory of Immunoendocrinology, Department of Clinical and Toxicological Analyses, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, São Paulo University (FCF/USP), São Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6718-3778
Rafael Dos Santos BarrosLaboratory of Immunoendocrinology, Department of Clinical and Toxicological Analyses, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, São Paulo University (FCF/USP), São Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.
Walter Miguel TuratoMulti-User Preclinical Imaging Center, Department of Clinical and Toxicological Analyses, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, São Paulo University (FCF/USP), São Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.
Anderson Sá-NunesLaboratory of Experimental Immunology, Department of Immunology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, São Paulo University (ICB/USP), São Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1859-4973
Naima Moustaid-MoussaNutrigenomics, Inflammation and One Health Research Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, Texas Tech University, Amarillo, Texas, USA, ttu.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7508-8030
Stephen Fernandes RodriguesLaboratory of Vascular Nanopharmacology, Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences of University-Sao Paulo (ICB/USP), Sao Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6818-0365
Joilson O MartinsLaboratory of Immunoendocrinology, Department of Clinical and Toxicological Analyses, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, São Paulo University (FCF/USP), São Paulo, Brazil, usp.br.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2630-7038
Funding
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 301423/2025-3Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 310993/2020-2Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 312674/2021-0Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 001Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2020/05439-4Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2022/00482-4Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2022/02742-3Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2023/05115-2Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2024/00810-7
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
Aging research increasingly relies on animal models to study the multifactorial processes of senescence. This study aimed to compare the physiological and metabolic parameters of C57BL/6J mice, a reference strain for biomedical research, with two strains commonly used to assess senescence: senescence-accelerated resistant 1 (SAMR1) and senescence-accelerated prone 8 (SAMP8) mice, over a 1-year period, in order to enhance our understanding of their utility in aging research. We focused on reproductive performance, glucose metabolism, bone density, hematological profiles, and overall longevity. SAMR1 mice exhibited higher prolificacy compared to C57BL/6J and SAMP8, with no significant differences in other reproductive parameters. Both SAMR1 males and females were larger and heavier, while C57BL/6J mice consumed less food relative to their body weight. Bone density decreased in all male groups from the fourth to the tenth month, while SAMP8 females showed an unexpected increase. C57BL/6J mice presented higher glucose levels, with SAMP8 males showing similar glucose intolerance and insulin resistance. Hematological analyses revealed sexual dimorphism, with SAMP8 males showing a distinct immunosenescence profile. Longevity varied by strain and sex, with SAMP8 males and SAMR1 females exhibiting shorter lifespans. These findings suggest that SAMR1 animals, despite sharing a genetic background with SAMP8, display a phenotype more akin to normal aging, supporting their use as a control in aging studies. Moreover, SAMP8's accelerated senescence makes it a valuable model for immunosenescence research. The study highlights the importance of considering strain- and sex-specific differences when working on aging research.
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.
Phenotypic Aging and Sexual Dimorphism in C57BL/6J, SAMR1, and SAMP8 Mice: A Comparative Study. · full record | OpenQuestion