Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28114100›Full record

ReviewGenetics2016

The Genetics of Axon Guidance and Axon Regeneration in Caenorhabditis elegans.

Andrew D Chisholm, Harald Hutter, Yishi Jin, William G Wadsworth

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Imaging of Actin Cytoskeleton in the Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. The regulatory landscape of neurite development inFrontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2022
    Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew D ChisholmSection of Neurobiology, Division of Biological Sciences, and chisholm@ucsd.edu hutter@sfu.ca william.wadsworth@rwjms.rutgers.edu yijin@ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5091-0537
Harald HutterDepartment of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada chisholm@ucsd.edu hutter@sfu.ca william.wadsworth@rwjms.rutgers.edu yijin@ucsd.edu.
Yishi JinSection of Neurobiology, Division of Biological Sciences, and chisholm@ucsd.edu hutter@sfu.ca william.wadsworth@rwjms.rutgers.edu yijin@ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9371-9860
William G WadsworthDepartment of Pathology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854 chisholm@ucsd.edu hutter@sfu.ca william.wadsworth@rwjms.rutgers.edu yijin@ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3824-2948
Johnson University · USSimon Fraser University · CAUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

Mechanisms of Tissue Morphogenesis in C. elegansR01GM054657 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI CHISHOLM, ANDREW D · 1997 to 2018
$5.8M
GABAERGIC NEURON DIFFERENTIATION IN C ELEGANSR01NS035546 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI JIN, YISHI · 1996 to 2016
$5.3M
Cytoskeletal dynamics in axon regenerationR01NS093588 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI CHISHOLM, ANDREW D, JIN, YISHI · 2015 to 2023
$3.7M
Development of a C. elegans model for axonal regenerationR01NS057317 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI CHISHOLM, ANDREW D · 2009 to 2013
$1.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM054657NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS035546NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS057317NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS093588
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The correct wiring of neuronal circuits depends on outgrowth and guidance of neuronal processes during development. In the past two decades, great progress has been made in understanding the molecular basis of axon outgrowth and guidance. Genetic analysis in Caenorhabditis elegans has played a key role in elucidating conserved pathways regulating axon guidance, including Netrin signaling, the slit Slit/Robo pathway, Wnt signaling, and others. Axon guidance factors were first identified by screens for mutations affecting animal behavior, and by direct visual screens for axon guidance defects. Genetic analysis of these pathways has revealed the complex and combinatorial nature of guidance cues, and has delineated how cues guide growth cones via receptor activity and cytoskeletal rearrangement. Several axon guidance pathways also affect directed migrations of non-neuronal cells in C. elegans, with implications for normal and pathological cell migrations in situations such as tumor metastasis. The small number of neurons and highly stereotyped axonal architecture of the C. elegans nervous system allow analysis of axon guidance at the level of single identified axons, and permit in vivo tests of prevailing models of axon guidance. C. elegans axons also have a robust capacity to undergo regenerative regrowth after precise laser injury (axotomy). Although such axon regrowth shares some similarities with developmental axon outgrowth, screens for regrowth mutants have revealed regeneration-specific pathways and factors that were not identified in developmental screens. Several areas remain poorly understood, including how major axon tracts are formed in the embryo, and the function of axon regeneration in the natural environment.

Indexed as

Actin CytoskeletonAnimalsAxon GuidanceCaenorhabditis elegansNerve RegenerationactinDLKephrinfasciculationgrowth conemicrotubulenetrinRobosemaphorinSlitWntWormBook

Identifiers

PMID28114100
PMCPMC5105865
OpenAlexW2550113781

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.