Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35625892›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2022

Perspective: Chicken Models for Studying the Ontogenetic Origin of Neuropsychiatric Disorders.

Xiaohong Huang, Heng-Wei Cheng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiaohong HuangInstitute of Neuroregeneration & Neurorehabilitation, Department of Pathophysiology, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3617-8911
Heng-Wei ChengDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0998-5294
Agricultural Research Service · USQingdao University · CN

Funding

United States Department of Agriculture 2017-67015-26567
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nutrients and xenobiotics cross the blood-placenta barrier, potentially depositing in the fetal brain. The prenatal exposure affects the neuroendocrine and microbial development. The mechanism underlying maternal risk factors reprograming the microbiota-gut-brain axis with long-term effects on psychosocial behaviors in offspring is not clear. In humans, it is not possible to assess the nutrient or xenobiotic deposition in the fetal brain and gastrointestinal system for ethical reasons. Moreover, the maternal-fetal microbe transfer during gestation, natural labor, and breast-feeding constitutes the initial gut microbiome in the progeny, which is inevitable in the most widely utilized rodent models. The social predisposition in precocial birds, including chickens, provides the possibility to test behavioral responses shortly after being hatched. Hence, chickens are advantageous in investigating the ontogenetic origin of behaviors. Chicken embryos are suitable for deposition assessment and mechanistic study due to the accessibility, self-contained development, uniform genetic background, robust microbiota, and easy in vivo experimental manipulation compared to humans and rodents. Therefore, chicken embryos can be used as an alternative to the rodent models in assessing the fetal exposure effect on neurogenesis and investigating the mechanism underlying the ontogenetic origin of neuropsychiatric disorders.

Indexed as

chicken embryomaternal–fetal medicinemicrobiota–gut–brain axisneurodevelopmental disordersnonclinical safety studypsychosocial dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID35625892
PMCPMC9138209
OpenAlexW4280513776

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.