Evidence mapPaperPMID 39584473Full record

ReviewBiochemical Society transactions2024

Age-dependent regenerative mechanisms in the brain.

Giada Vanacore, Jens Bager Christensen, N Sumru Bayin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biochemical Society transactions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

3 authors.

Giada VanacoreGurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
Jens Bager ChristensenGurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
N Sumru BayinGurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.ORCID 0000-0003-4371-855X

Funding

Cancer Research UK C6946/A24843Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 227294/Z/23/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Repairing the adult mammalian brain represents one of the greatest clinical challenges in medicine. Injury to the adult brain often results in substantial loss of neural tissue and permanent functional impairment. In contrast with the adult, during development, the mammalian brain exhibits a remarkable capacity to replace lost cells. A plethora of cell-intrinsic and extrinsic factors regulate the age-dependent loss of regenerative potential in the brain. As the developmental window closes, neural stem cells undergo epigenetic changes, limiting their proliferation and differentiation capacities, whereas, changes in the brain microenvironment pose additional challenges opposing regeneration, including inflammation and gliosis. Therefore, studying the regenerative mechanisms during development and identifying what impairs them with age may provide key insights into how to stimulate regeneration in the brain. Here, we will discuss how the mammalian brain engages regenerative mechanisms upon injury or neuron loss. Moreover, we will describe the age-dependent changes that affect these processes. We will conclude by discussing potential therapeutic approaches to overcome the age-dependent regenerative decline and stimulate regeneration.

Indexed as

AgingBrainNeural Stem CellsAnimalsCell DifferentiationCell ProliferationEpigenesis, GeneticHumansNerve RegenerationNeurogenesisNeuronsRegenerationadaptive reprogrammingneural stem cellsregenerationrodent brain

Identifiers

PMID39584473
PMCPMC11668278

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.