Evidence mapPaperPMID 42410332Full record

ReviewBioFactors (Oxford, England)

Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila melanogaster as Model Organisms in Biofactor Research.

Kai Lüersen, Thomas Roeder, Gerald Rimbach

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioFactors (Oxford, England). 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

3 authors.

Kai LüersenDepartment of Food Science, Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Thomas RoederDivision of Molecular Physiology, Institute of Zoology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3489-3834
Gerald RimbachDepartment of Food Science, Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7888-4684

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 544530435Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft CRC 1182 project C2Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft GRK3128
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Model organisms play a central role in advancing our understanding of human nutrition and physiology. This narrative review highlights the unique advantages of the invertebrate models Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila melanogaster for studying biofactors-diet-derived compounds that modulate biological functions. Both models offer powerful genetic toolkits, short life cycles, and cost-effective maintenance, enabling high-throughput and mechanistic investigations. Particular emphasis is placed on the availability of chemically defined diets, which allow precise manipulation of nutrient and biofactor composition. These features make C. elegans and D. melanogaster invaluable systems for dissecting the essentiality, bioavailability, and physiological impact of individual biofactors as illustrated by selected recent studies. Being ethically less problematic substitutes for mammalian models, both invertebrate models offer the possibility of closing the gap that often exists between in vitro and cell culture studies on the one hand and in vivo evaluation in animal experiments in laboratory rodents on the other. By integrating these model systems into experimental research, we can gain critical insights into biofactor-gene interactions and the molecular mechanisms underlying their health-promoting properties.

Indexed as

Caenorhabditis elegansDrosophila melanogasterModels, AnimalAnimalsHumansbiofactor metabolismCaenorhabditis eleganschemically defined dietscomparative physiologyDrosophila melanogaster

Identifiers

PMID42410332
PMCPMC13337977

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.