The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 12 of the 24 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Transparent Adult Zebrafish as a Tool for In Vivo Transplantation Analysis
Open accessAbstract
The zebrafish is a useful model for understanding normal and cancer stem cells, but analysis has been limited to embryogenesis due to the opacity of the adult fish. To address this, we have created a transparent adult zebrafish in which we transplanted either hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells or tumor cells. In a hematopoiesis radiation recovery assay, transplantation of GFP-labeled marrow cells allowed for striking in vivo visual assessment of engraftment from 2 hr-5 weeks posttransplant. Using FACS analysis, both transparent and wild-type fish had equal engraftment, but this could only be visualized in the transparent recipient. In a tumor engraftment model, transplantation of RAS-melanoma cells allowed for visualization of tumor engraftment, proliferation, and distant metastases in as little as 5 days, which is not seen in wild-type recipients until 3 to 4 weeks. This transparent adult zebrafish serves as the ideal combination of both sensitivity and resolution for in vivo stem cell analyses.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
White et al. generated a doubly mutant zebrafish line, *casper* (*nacre*;*roy*), that lacks melanocytes and iridophores and is transparent throughout adulthood, enabling in vivo visualization of transplanted hematopoietic and tumor cells. Using this line, they tracked HSPC engraftment to the kidney marrow and detected melanoma engraftment and distant metastasis far earlier than in wild-type recipients.
Key findings
- *casper* fish (homozygous *nacre* and *roy*) completely lack melanocytes and iridophores in embryogenesis and adulthood; organs including heart, intestinal tube, liver, and gallbladder are visible by standard stereomicroscopy, and ventricular contraction can be observed. The line is viable, with incrossed adults producing offspring at expected Mendelian ratios and no heterozygous phenotype.
- After intracardiac transplantation of 100,000 beta-actin:GFP whole kidney marrow cells into a 25 Gy–irradiated *casper* recipient, GFP-labeled cells were visible in the kidney region and gill vasculature by 2 weeks and largely confined to the kidney by 4 weeks; FACS showed equal multilineage engraftment in *casper* and wild-type recipients, but only *casper* allowed visualization. Anti-GFP IHC confirmed homing of donor cells to kidney marrow.
- Confocal imaging of transplanted *casper* fish resolved single cells and clusters at ~5 μm, with a maximal depth of field of 88 μm from the skin surface; no discernible GFP signal was obtainable in wild-type recipients.
- In tumor transplants, 200,000 disaggregated NRAS-GFP or BRAF;p53 melanoma cells injected IP or intracardiac produced visible tumor masses within 5 days in *casper*, versus 2–3 weeks in wild-type; 9/24 (37.5%) of BRAF;p53 recipients showed distant metastasis between 5 and 28 days, peaking at 5–10 days, with one tumor volume measured at 1496 mm³ by 3D calculation.
Methods
- Design: generation and characterization of a compound pigmentation mutant zebrafish line, followed by transplantation assays for hematopoietic and tumor cells.
- Sample/data: wild-type (AB), tg(beta-actin:GFP), *roy orbison*, *panther/rose*, *nacre*, *golden*, *albino*, and p53 lines; tg(mitf:NRAS-GFP) and tg(mitf:BRAF) melanoma donors crossed to p53−/−. Recipients irradiated with 25 Gy two days before transplant; 5 μl of 100,000 cells/μl marrow or 50,000 cells/μl tumor suspension injected intracardially or intraperitoneally.
- Analysis: stereomicroscopy (Zeiss Discovery V8), confocal microscopy (Zeiss LSM Meta), H&E and Masson's trichrome histology, anti-GFP immunohistochemistry, and FACS of kidney marrow for forward/side scatter and GFP.
Limitations
- Stated: the line requires both mutations in the homozygous state, needing at least two breeding cycles to use existing transgenic lines; the *roy* mutation is unknown, so it may affect unknown aspects of tumor or stem cell biology (though it does not affect survival); imaging very deep tissues may require multiphoton microscopy, which is experimental in zebrafish.
- Evident from the text: the metastasis mechanism is described as unclear, and the authors note the early dissemination may reflect accumulated genetic changes in donor tumors present for over a month; the tumor volume of 1496 mm³ is reported for a single representative fish.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
40 Own result · 19 Own interpretation · 8 No basis given · 6 Partly supported · 5 No full text of the sources · 2 Supported · 1 Not supported · 1 Sources not found · 1 Not checked yet · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The zebrafish is a useful model for understanding normal and cancer stem cells, but analysis has been limited to embryogenesis due to the opacity of the adult fish.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Burns et al., 2005 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s Abstract describes zebrafish experiments on normal hematopoietic stem-cell specification and maintenance during development and adulthood. It does not establish zebrafish as a model for understanding cancer stem cells; searches for cancer stem cells, leukemia, and tumors found no such discussion in the paper’s body. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites Traver et al., 2004a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Langenau et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Identifying the cancer stem cell in zERMS” (page unavailable), the paper uses zebrafish to isolate an ERMS cancer stem cell and compares it with normal muscle satellite cells. This supports the model’s usefulness for studying cancer stem cells, but the paper does not directly establish its usefulness for studying normal stem cells. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most strikingly, the body of the fish is almost entirely transparent.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of these organs are easily visible in any of the other pigment mutants studied (see Figure S1 available online) other than the heart and intestinal tube in rose.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a hematopoiesis radiation recovery assay, transplantation of GFP-labeled marrow cells allowed for striking in vivo visual assessment of engraftment from 2 hr–5 weeks posttransplant.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Examination of the cardiac region of the casper mutant (Movie S1) shows that ventricular contraction can be observed, making this mutant useful for in vivo analysis of genetic perturbations in cardiac function.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a tumor engraftment model, transplantation of RAS-melanoma cells allowed for visualization of tumor engraftment, proliferation, and distant metastases in as little as 5 days, which is not seen in wild-type recipients until 3 to 4 weeks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In female adults, individual eggs are easily observable, as seen in Figure 1D.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This line, which we have named casper for its ghost like appearance, demonstrates a complete lack of all melanocytes and iridophores in both embryogenesis and adulthood.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organs that can be seen using standard stereomicroscopy in casper include the heart, intestinal tube, liver, and gallbladder.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Brain tissue is visible to a small extent.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 16
- It may state two separate claims as one. 29
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“In addition, bioluminescence has met with only limited success in the zebrafish system (Creton et al., 1997; Kaneko and Cahill, 2005”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Creton et al., 1997 source
- Disputedcites Kaneko and Cahill, 2005 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) describes the authors’ bioluminescent transgenic zebrafish as a high-throughput system for studying circadian gene expression in whole animals, contrary to the broad claim of only limited success. It notes a narrower limitation: embryos were unsuitable for circadian studies with these lines, whereas older larvae produced robust rhythms. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Prior work from our laboratory has demonstrated that the zebrafish is a useful model for understanding the genetics of both HSPC (Burns et al., 2005; Traver et al., 2004a”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Burns et al., 2005 source
The citation is attached to the HSPC portion of the citing sentence. In the section on Mind bomb and HSC specification, the paper uses zebrafish mutants to investigate genes controlling hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, supporting zebrafish as a model for that purpose. The supplied sentence does not attach this citation to tumor stem cell biology. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not matchedcites Traver et al., 2004a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Langenau et al., 2007 source
The section ‘Identifying the cancer stem cell in zERMS’ reports that zebrafish experiments isolated a cancer stem cell and helped identify pathways relevant to its self-renewal. This supports the tumor-stem-cell part attributed to this paper; the printed sentence cites Burns and Traver for HSPCs. (LLM, conf=0.91)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The characteristic adult pigmentation pattern of the zebrafish consists of three distinct classes of pigment cells arranged in stripes (Figure 1A): black melanophores, reflective iridophores, and yellow xanthophores”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Rawls et al., 2001 source
The “Zebrafish Melanocyte Development” section names yellow xanthophores, reflective iridophores, and black melanocytes, noting that melanocytes are also called melanophores. “Simple Models of Organogenesis” discusses all three cell types in relation to adult body stripes. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In vivo imaging is a critical counterpart to studying molecular processes in cell culture systems (Koo et al., 2006”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Koo et al., 2006 source
The abstract (p. 1) calls in vivo molecular imaging an “essential bridge between in vitro data and their translation into clinical applications.” The Introduction (p. 1) also describes its use in studying molecular and cellular mechanisms in animal models. Together, these support the claim’s characterization of in vivo imaging as a critical counterpart to in vitro study. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“MRI is a useful technique for visualizing transplanted cells in vivo and has a spatial resolution of 25–50 μm but requires a significant amount of magnetic dye treatment of transplanted cells, has limited sensitivity, and requires considerably complex and expensive equipment (Lee et al., 2007; Lyons, 2005”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lee et al., 2007 source
- Partly supportedcites Lyons, 2005 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 1 (Conclusions; page not provided) supports MRI's high spatial resolution and low sensitivity, but gives a resolution of 25–100 μm, not 25–50 μm. The MRI imaging section describes contrast probes, not a requirement for substantial magnetic-dye treatment of transplanted cells. The paper notes that equipment costs vary between modalities but does not specifically describe MRI equipment as complex and expensive. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Bioluminescence has been utilized to detect engraftment and hematopoietic reconstitution after transplantation of luciferase-positive HSC populations (Welsh and Kay, 2005; Cao et al., 2006”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Welsh and Kay, 2005 source
- Partly supportedcites Cao et al., 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page not provided) report using bioluminescence to assess engraftment after transplantation of luciferase-expressing embryonic stem cells into rat hearts. The source does not report transplantation of hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) populations or detection of hematopoietic reconstitution. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Another concern is the dose of radiation in both CT and PET that would need to be delivered to the fish to achieve adequate resolution, which may have independent biological effects (Paulus et al., 2000; Pickhardt et al., 2005”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Paulus et al., 2000 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Radiation Dose section calls radiation exposure an important concern in microCT studies and compares the estimated dose in mice with published lethal-dose values; Table 1 reports organ doses for high-resolution and screening scans. This supports a concern about CT radiation, but the paper does not establish the dose needed for adequate resolution in fish or address biological effects from PET imaging. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites Pickhardt et al., 2005 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion says radiation from microCT scanning could potentially affect tumor growth and interfere with serial monitoring in mice. Materials and Methods says the authors chose parameters that provided adequate resolution while minimizing radiation dose. The paper does not establish this concern for PET or fish. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The iridophores of the skin are a dermal-hypodermal structure which are normally intimately connected to the surrounding xanthophores and lie just above the trunk skeletal muscle”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Le Guellec et al., 2004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “An overview of the current knowledge of fish skin” (page unavailable), the paper places iridophores and xanthophores in the hypodermis, between the dermis and underlying muscle. It does not say that iridophores are normally intimately connected to xanthophores, or specifically describe iridophores as a dermal-hypodermal structure. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“However, there is a complete absence of the scleral iridophore layer (Figure 2A, arrow), which is demonstrated by the loss of refractive crystalline plates (Clothier and Lythgoe, 1987”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Clothier and Lythgoe, 1987 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The gross morphology of the casper eye is normal, with maintenance of the scleral-corneal border and normal pigmented retinal epithelial cells.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In wild-type animals, the pigmented retinal epithelium is normally obscured by the reflective iridophores; their absence in roy mutants exposes the black cells across the entire surface of the eye.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To address this, we have created a transparent adult zebrafish in which we transplanted either hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells or tumor cells.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The roy orbison (roy) zebrafish (Figure 1C) is a spontaneous mutant and has a complete lack of iridophores, uniformly pigmented eyes, sparse melanocytes, and a translucency of the skin.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The casper mutant is entirely viable, with incrossed adults producing large numbers of viable offspring at expected mendelian ratios and no heterozygous phenotype.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although no GFP can be visualized with a fluorescent stereoscope in the wild-type, a normal distribution of hematopoietic cells is seen at 4 weeks posttransplant, and many of these cells are GFP positive (Figure 3B, top).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pattern of engraftment at 5 days in the intracardiac recipients of NRAS-GFP cells (Figure 4A, bottom) largely reflects local deposition of tumor cells along the transplantation tract, although some cells can be seen migrating dorsally.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a similarly transplanted wild-type fish, no visible tumors are seen until 2 to 3 weeks posttransplant, and metastatic cells are not detectable.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Figure 4C, this individual fish is fully viable over this period of time, and the tumor volume can be assessed at each time point without sacrificing the animal.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At 4 hr posttransplant, a pool of blood surrounds the cardiac chambers, which likely represents extravasated blood in the pericardial sac.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of the hematopoietic cells are strongly GFP-positive by IHC (Figure 3C, right, brown staining), whereas none of the kidney tubule cells stain for GFP.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The inset of Figure 4A (bottom) demonstrates that the tumor cells (taken at 10 days posttransplant) continue to be strongly GFP positive and indicates that they could be localized even in the absence of black pigmentation.”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mediolateral and ventral views of this tumor allow for three-dimensional calculation of tumor volume (in this case 1496 mm3).”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the right-hand figure, a small cluster of individual cells (see inset) have disseminated far away from the implantation site and have become embedded in the dorsal skin.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By 4 weeks, a significant increase in the size and distribution of this GFP-labeled population can be easily visualized and is now largely confined to the anatomical area of the kidney of the fish (Figure 3B, right).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Real-time microscopy of cardiac contraction in the casper mutant. Distinct phases of systole and diastole can be examined by light microscopy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While wild-type fish (Figure 2B, arrow) show a substantial layer of these reflective cells, the casper mutant has a complete absence of this layer, while the remaining skin structures are relatively intact, including epidermal scales and dermal collagen fibers as demonstrated by Masson's trichrome stain (data not shown).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Between 5 and 28 days posttransplant, 9/24 (37.5%) of all transplant recipients had evidence of distant metastasis, with the peak of initial dissemination occurring between 5 and 10 days.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The development of a robust, fertile, and easily maintained transparent adult zebrafish provides an important adult complement to the studies that are achievable in the transparent zebrafish embryo.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ability to calculate 3D tumor volume and whole body distribution of tumor cells provides an important quantitative analysis of engraftment after small numbers of tumor cells and offers the potential for monitoring in vivo effects of therapeutically useful molecules.”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because nonmelanized but fluorescently labeled tumor cells can be visualized in the same manner, this tumor transplant model should be amenable to virtually any transplantable tumor.”
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data suggest that the transparent casper mutant allows for ready visualization of hematopoietic progenitor engraftment after a sublethal dose of 25 Gy, consistent with short-term hematopoietic engraftment.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Prior work from our laboratory has demonstrated that the transplantable hematopoietic stem/progenitor (HSPC) marrow population resides within the adult kidney, and can be isolated using flow cytometric analysis of forward and side scatter”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Traver et al., 2003 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our data suggests that the casper fish will serve as a useful platform for researchers interested in processes such as stem cell engraftment and homing.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on the scatter profile, multilineage engraftment has occurred, which indicates that the engrafted cells represent a primitive hematopoietic population.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One limitation of this line is that it requires that both mutations (nacre and roy) be present in the homozygous state, which will require at least two breeding cycles to take advantage of currently available transgenic lines.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although similar to the “see through” medaka strain (Wakamatsu et al., 2001”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wakamatsu et al., 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, imaging of very deep tissues may require multiphoton microscopy, which is currently experimental in the zebrafish system.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the adult zebrafish is well suited to genetic and small molecule based screens, the casper fish will allow for detailed in vivo study of stem and cancer biology in a vertebrate organism with great relevance to human biology.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: The adult zebrafish is well suited to genetic and small molecule based screens.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, because the mutation in roy is currently unknown (but under active investigation), it is possible that this gene defect may affect some unknown aspects of tumor or stem cell biology, although it clearly does not affect survival.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“PET imaging, which can detect relatively small numbers of tumor cells, requires radioactive labeling of cell populations, is only moderately sensitive, and necessitates small animal PET scanners, which are not broadly available (Beckmann et al., 2007; Tai et al., 2005”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Beckmann et al., 2007 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tai et al., 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although bioluminescence had high sensitivity in this study, it had limited spatial resolution (on the order of 1–10 mm), required several minutes of imaging per animal, showed detection of light from deep tissues is limited, and requires intravenous administration of substrate.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Analysis of adult zebrafish has been limited to embryogenesis due to the opacity of the adult fish.
“The zebrafish is a useful model for understanding normal and cancer stem cells, but analysis has been limited to embryogenesis due to the opacity of the adult fish.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The in vivo spatial resolution of the adult animal is limited due to the normal opacification of skin and subdermal structures.
“As in murine and human systems, however, the in vivo spatial resolution of the adult animal is limited due to the normal opacification of skin and subdermal structures.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Current in vivo imaging techniques such as bioluminescence, PET, CT, or MRI each have specific disadvantages in terms of resolution, sensitivity, or the need for costly equipment.
“Current in vivo imaging techniques, such as bioluminescence, PET, CT, or MRI, each have specific disadvantages in terms of resolution, sensitivity, or the need for costly equipment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The in vivo behavior of stem cell populations is considerably more complex than in vitro models can offer.
“Because the in vivo behavior of stem cell populations is considerably more complex than in vitro models can offer, we now describe a transparent adult zebrafish model”
The paper relies on this without support.
Fluorescent imaging, though widely available and standard for gene function analysis in zebrafish embryos, is of limited use in adult wild-type zebrafish.
“Fluorescent imaging is widely available and is a standard method of analysis of gene function in zebrafish embryos; image acquisition is rapid, but is of limited use in adult wild-type zebrafish.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The adult zebrafish is well suited to genetic and small molecule based screens.
“Because the adult zebrafish is well suited to genetic and small molecule based screens”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“To date none of these strategies produce normally behaving larvae that are transparent in both the body and the eyes.”
From A crystal-clear zebrafish for in vivo imaging (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The combinatorial crystal mutant (albb4/b4;nacrew2/w2;roya9/a9) was generated by sequentially crossbreeding three different single mutant strains, namely nacrew2/w2 (ref. 9), roya9/a9 (ref. 4) and albb4/b4 (ref. 18) mutants.”
From A crystal-clear zebrafish for in vivo imaging (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The casper mutant was obtained by crossing nacrew2/w2 and roya9/a9 mutants, as previously described4.”
From A crystal-clear zebrafish for in vivo imaging (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Compared to the previously described combinatorial pigmentation mutant casper that has pigmented eyes4, the crystal mutant constitutes a significant improvement for in vivo imaging of tissues inside or between the eyes.”
From A crystal-clear zebrafish for in vivo imaging (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Common strategies to reduce zebrafish skin pigmentation can be grouped in two categories: 1) use of chemical compounds interfering with the synthesis of melanin, the most popular one being 1-phenyl-2-thiourea (PTU)8; 2) use of pigmentation mutants in which genes controlling either pigment formation, chromatophore formation or interactions between chromatophores have been inactivated469.”
From A crystal-clear zebrafish for in vivo imaging (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This strategy has been previously implemented to generate the double mutant casper, which lacks all melanophores and iridophores4.”
From A crystal-clear zebrafish for in vivo imaging (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Compared to the previously described double mutant casper (nacrew2/w2;roya9/a9)4, where internal organs are also visible, the triple mutant crystal (nacrew2/w2;albb4/b4;roya9/a9) lacks melanin in the RPE (Fig. 1b).”
From A crystal-clear zebrafish for in vivo imaging (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“More specifically, compared to casper mutants4, crystal fish are superior in terms of optical transparency when imaging inside or between the eyes.”
From A crystal-clear zebrafish for in vivo imaging (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Overall, the crystal mutant constitutes a significant improvement in the optical accessibility of both larval and adult zebrafish, even superior to the previously described combinatorial mutant casper4, which is characterised by black-pigmented eyes.”
From A crystal-clear zebrafish for in vivo imaging (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The roy orbison (roya9/a9) mutant shows a complete lack of iridophores4.”
From A crystal-clear zebrafish for in vivo imaging (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
Citations
Cites
Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells
Al‐Hajj, M., Wicha, M. S., Benito‐Hernández, A., Morrison, S. J., & Clarke, M. F. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0530291100 · Cited by 10,579
Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells
Singh, S. K., Hawkins, C. E., Clarke, I. D., Squire, J. A., Bayani, J., Hide, T., Henkelman, R. M., Cusimano, M. D., & Dirks, P. B. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03128 · Cited by 7,564
Twist, a Master Regulator of Morphogenesis, Plays an Essential Role in Tumor Metastasis
Yang, J., Mani, S. A., Donaher, J. L., Ramaswamy, S., Itzykson, R., Côme, C., Savagner, P., Gitelman, I., Richardson, A. L., & Weinberg, R. A. (2004) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.06.006 · Cited by 3,917
Artificially engineered magnetic nanoparticles for ultra-sensitive molecular imaging
Lee, J.-H., Huh, Y.-M., Jun, Y.-W., Seo, J.-W., Jang, J.-T., Song, H.-T., Kim, S., Cho, E.-J., Yoon, H.-G., Suh, J.-S., et al. (2007) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm1467 · Cited by 1,897
Bone morphogenetic proteins inhibit the tumorigenic potential of human brain tumour-initiating cells
Piccirillo, S. G. M., Reynolds, B. A., Zanetti, N., Lamorte, G., Binda, E., Broggi, G., Brem, H., Olivi, A., DiMeco, F., & Vescovi, A. L. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05349 · Cited by 1,199
In vivo imaging of specialized bone marrow endothelial microdomains for tumour engraftment
Sipkins, D. A., Wei, X., Wu, J. W., Runnels, J. M., Côté, D. C., Means, T. K., Luster, A. D., Scadden, D. T., & Lin, C. P. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03703 · Cited by 880
Lister, J. A., Robertson, C. P., Lepage, T., Johnson, S. L., & Raible, D. W. (1999) · Development · doi:10.1242/dev.126.17.3757 · Cited by 819
Transplantation and in vivo imaging of multilineage engraftment in zebrafish bloodless mutants
Traver, D., Paw, B. H., Poss, K. D., Penberthy, W. T., Lin, S., & Zon, L. I. (2003) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/ni1007 · Cited by 800
Self-citationCao, F., Lin, S., Xie, X., Ray, P., Patel, M., Zhang, X., Drukker, M., Dylla, S. J., Connolly, A. J., Chen, X., et al. (2006) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.588954 · Cited by 493
High resolution X-ray computed tomography: an emerging tool for small animal cancer research
Paulus, M. J., Gleason, S. S., Kennel, S. J., Hunsicker, P. R., & Johnson, D. K. (2000) · Neoplasia · doi:10.1038/sj.neo.7900069 · Cited by 490
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Traver, 2004, Effects of lethal irradiation in zebrafish and rescue by hematopoietic cell transplantation, Blood, 104, 1298, 10.1182/blood-2004-01-0100 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,101–1,200 of 1,411
MacLean, J. E., Wertman, J. N., Prykhozhij, S. V., Chedrawe, E. R., Langley, S., Steele, S. L., Ban, K., BLAKE, K. D., & Berman, J. N. (2023) · Genes · doi:10.3390/genes14051086 · Cited by 2
Rabbane, M. G., Rahman, M. M., Kabir, M. A., & Faruque, M. H. (2017) · Dhaka University Journal of Biological Sciences · doi:10.3329/dujbs.v26i1.46352 · Cited by 2
Zebrafish as a Versatile Model for Cancer Research
Jindal, S., Allawadhi, P., Sinha, S., Khurana, A., Bharani, K. K., & Gopinath, P. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-5217-2_7 · Cited by 3
Lee, H.-T. (2010) · St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) · Cited by 1
Piscirickettsia salmonis; characterization and infection in the zebrafish model
Berger, E. (2014) · NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives · Cited by 2
Prykhozhij, S. V., Fuller, C. J., Steele, S. L., Veinotte, C. J., Razaghi, B., Robitaille, J. M., McMaster, C. R., Shlien, A., Malkin, D. M., & Berman, J. N. (2017) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/194936 · Cited by 2
Fast Objective Coupled Planar Illumination MicroscopyPreprint
Greer, C., & Holy, T. E. (2018) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/501890 · Cited by 2
Future state prediction errors guide active avoidance behavior by adult zebrafishPreprint
Torigoe, M., Islam, T., Kakinuma, H., Fung, C. C. A., Isomura, T., Shimazaki, H., Aoki, T., Fukai, T., & Okamoto, H. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/546440 · Cited by 2
PME-1 suppresses anoikis and is associated with therapy relapse of PTEN-deficient prostate cancersPreprint
Aakula, A., Isomursu, A., Rupp, C., Erickson, A. M., Kauko, O., Shah, P., Padzik, A., Pokharel, Y. R., Kaur, A., Li, S.-P., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/581660 · Cited by 2
Lesi, A. A., Heilmann, S., White, R. M., & Rumschitzki, D. S. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/676791 · Cited by 2
Self-citationPiVR: an affordable and versatile closed-loop platform to study unrestrained sensorimotor behaviorPreprint
Tadres, D., & Louis, M. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2019.12.20.885442 · Cited by 2
Carbon dots deposition in adult bones reveal areas of growth, injury and regenerationPreprint
DuMez, R., Miyanji, E. H., Corado-Santiago, L., Barrameda, B., Zhou, Y., Hettiarachchi, S. D., Leblanc, R. M., & Skromne, I. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.10.13.338426 · Cited by 2
improv : A software platform for real-time and adaptive neuroscience experimentsPreprint
Draelos, A., Loring, M. D., Nikitchenko, M., Sriworarat, C., Gupta, P., Sprague, D., Pnevmatikakis, E. A., Giovannucci, A., Benster, T., Deisseroth, K. A., et al. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.02.22.432006 · Cited by 2
Engraftment of allotransplantated tumour cells in adult rag2 mutant Xenopus tropicalisPreprint
Tulkens, D., Dimitrakopoulou, D., Nieuwenhuysen, T. V., Boelens, M., Demuynck, S., Toussaint, W., Creytens, D., Vlierberghe, P. V., & Vleminckx, K. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.11.15.468684 · Cited by 2
Suku, A. S., Mohanan, P. V., & Freeman, J. L. (2022) · doi:10.1002/9781119807704.ch20 · Cited by 2
Moore, M. J., El‐Rass, S., Xiao, Y.-L., Wang, Y., Wen, X., & Kolios, M. C. (2022) · doi:10.32920/21290970 · Cited by 2
Next-generation plasmids for transgenesis in zebrafish and beyondPreprint
Kemmler, C. L., Moran, H. R., Murray, B. F., Scoresby, A., Klem, J. R., Eckert, R. L., Lepovsky, E., Bertho, S., Nieuwenhuize, S., Burger, S., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.13.520107 · Cited by 2
Organ specific microenvironmental MR1 expression in cutaneous melanomaPreprint
Gordon, P. B., So, W. Y., Azubuike, U. F., Johnson, B., Cicala, J., Sturgess, V. E., Wong, C., Bishop, K. S., Bresciani, E., Sood, R. B., et al. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.12.28.573554 · Cited by 2
A bacterial cell wall repair and modification system to resist host antibacterial factorsPreprint
Burnier, J., Gallay, C., Bruce, K. E., Bjånes, E., Martin, L., Jim, K. K., Tsui, H. T., Cremers, A. J. H., Mignolet, J., Vollmer, D., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.11.08.622053 · Cited by 2
Hamadou, M. H., Alunno, L., Venturelli, T., Valentini, S., Dalfovo, D., Lorenzini, F., Mattivi, A., Vigorito, V., Grupelli, G. P., Mattè, A., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.04.02.646512 · Cited by 2
Specialized gas-exchange endothelium of the zebrafish gillPreprint
Park, J. S., Gutkowski, J., Castranova, D., Kenton, M. I., Sur, A., Martinez-Aceves, C., Nguyen, M.-A., Dell, C., Margolin, G., Iben, J., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.11.30.690480 · Cited by 2
Meyer, D., Kroeschell, G., Lu, X., Hoang, L., Wang, H., Li, S., Xu, Y. K. T., Tian, L., Mumm, J. S., Bergles, D. E., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.16.694458 · Cited by 2
Whole-brain mapping of spinal-projecting neurons in larval zebrafishPreprint
Tano, M. C., Fidelin, K., Welch, T., Narayan, S., Ahrens, M. B., Dubuc, R., & Wyart, C. (2026) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.112062 · Cited by 2
Animal Models in Cancer Research
Yusuf, K., Umar, S., & Ahmed, I. (2022) · Handbook of Animal Models and its Uses in Cancer Research · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-1282-5_17-1 · Cited by 1
Physicochemical and Inflammatory Analysis of Unconjugated and Conjugated Bone-Binding Carbon Dots
Chau, Q., Corado-Santiago, L., Jones, S., Dattelbaum, J. D., & Skromne, I. (2023) · ACS Omega · doi:10.1021/acsomega.3c07653 · Cited by 1
Huang, H., Machikhin, A. S., Chen, D., & Huang, C. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control · doi:10.1109/tuffc.2024.3414856 · Cited by 1
The Genetics of Sleep in Zebrafish
Zimmerman, A. J. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-62723-1_4 · Cited by 1
Førde, J.-L., Alhourani, A. H., Carey, T., Arbab, A., Fladmark, K. E., Skrede, S., Mollnes, T. E., Herfindal, L., & Hagland, H. R. (2024) · ACS Omega · doi:10.1021/acsomega.4c03189 · Cited by 1
Using Zebrafish to Study the Mechanisms That Underlie Down Syndrome
Moyer, A. J., & Thyme, S. B. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78611-2_6 · Cited by 1
Bioactive hydrogenated azaphilones from acid-tolerant fungus Penicillium purpureum OUCMDZ-019
Hou, C., Wang, Y., Meng, X., Lu, L., Fu, P., Zhu, W., & Wang, Y. (2025) · The Journal of Antibiotics · doi:10.1038/s41429-025-00818-7 · Cited by 1
Rajpurohit, S. K., Manhiani, D. A. S., Ajith, A., Rajpurohit, P., Hotwani, S., Nasanally, S., Sreekumar, A., Bhat, K., Derhei, A. V., Pasi, R., et al. (2025) · Biomedicines · doi:10.3390/biomedicines13061267 · Cited by 1
Gut distension evokes rapid neural dynamics in vagal and hindbrain populations of larval zebrafish
Arinel, M., Atkinson, J. A., Matos-Fernández, K. M., Drage, E. P., Hawkyard, M., & Naumann, E. A. (2026) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.116206 · Cited by 4
Mishra, A. K., Kamal, Y. T., Mishra, A., Ahmed, M. M., Shrivastav, A., Verma, S., Kumar, P., Singh, H., & Kumar, A. (2025) · Current Pharmaceutical Design · doi:10.2174/0113816128396857250917224145 · Cited by 2
Jacintho, J. C., Ferreira, A., & Rocha, T. L. (2025) · Nanomedicine Nanotechnology Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.nano.2025.102867 · Cited by 1
Fibroblasts promote osmotic surveillance by wound-induced unique calcium patterns
Fazekas, L., Kaszás, D., Vámosi, B., Tamás, S. X., Szöllősi, T., Mihályi, V., Dehne, F. G., Vágó-Kiss, K., Al-Sheraji, N. M., Paulovits, B., et al. (2025) · The Journal of Cell Biology · doi:10.1083/jcb.202501165 · Cited by 1
A zebrafish model of chronic heart failure caused by protein aggregation in heart valves
Li, Y., Maegawa, S., Kimura, R., Suzuki, S., Nishimura, T., & Hagiwara, M. (2025) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-025-08882-3 · Cited by 1
Hernández, L., Paris, T., Demou, M., Birck, C., Begon‐Pescia, C., Rodríguez-Vidal, J. F., Tyrkalska, S. D., Bureau, C., Gonzalez, C., Gracia, J., et al. (2025) · FEBS Journal · doi:10.1111/febs.70354 · Cited by 3
TKI-mediated inhibition of NLRP1 inflammasome restores erythropoiesis in DBA syndrome
Lozano‐Gil, J. M., Rodríguez‐Ruiz, L., Palacios, M., Peral, J., Navarro, S., Fuster, J. L., Beléndez, C., Jerez, A., Murillo, L., de Heredia, C. D., et al. (2026) · EMBO Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1038/s44321-025-00368-3 · Cited by 2
Kim, H. H., Im, S., Kim, J., Jo, Y., Hong, E., Jang, S. Y., Sung, J., Jacchetti, E., Raimondi, M. T., Ryu, E.-J., et al. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-36430-4 · Cited by 1
Deficiency of Werner RecQ-type DNA helicase causes premature malnutrition in zebrafish
Ujibe, K., Kashima, M., Kataoka, M., Shimada, R., Okamoto, M., Kobayashi, I., Wada, S., Matsuda, H., Sakamoto, A., & Hirata, H. (2026) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.114760 · Cited by 1
Lane-Petter’s Pipeline: Why reliably decreasing animal research takes more than replacements
Müller, N. D. (2026) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-025-00715-8 · Cited by 1
A zebrafish module for genetic problem-solving
Parsons, M. J., & Lee, S. W. (2026) · Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education · doi:10.1128/jmbe.00051-26 · Cited by 1
Kaveh, A., Salazar-Martín, A. G., Dai, W., Kithcart, A. P., Pan, E., Kc, A., Reinoso, T. R., Vetrano-Olsen, F., Saha, K., Beerens, M., et al. (2026) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-026-72756-3 · Cited by 2
Yevdash, J. I., Robinson, D., Moore, R., Li, Z., Campbell-Hanson, K. R., Gutelius, D., Moore, S. P. G., Friend, D., O'Toole, I., Harman, B. E., et al. (2026) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-25-5299 · Cited by 2
Mycobacterium marinum as a surrogate model for tuberculosis pathogenesis and drug discovery
Aspatwar, A. (2026) · Microbial Pathogenesis · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2026.108749 · Cited by 1
Hamadou, M. H., Alunno, L., Venturelli, T., Valentini, S., Dalfovo, D., Lorenzini, F., Mattivi, A., Vigorito, V., Grupelli, G. P., Mattè, A., et al. (2026) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.117707 · Cited by 1
In vivo cell tracking and quantification method in adult zebrafish
Zhang, L., Alt, C., Li, P., White, R. M., Zon, L. I., Wei, X., & Lin, C. P. (2012) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.909632 · Cited by 1
Self-citationInsights from Genetic Models of Melanoma in Fish
Anelli, V., Zettler, N., & Mione, M. (2014) · Current Pathobiology Reports · doi:10.1007/s40139-014-0043-1 · Cited by 1
The Role of TNFAIP8L1 in the Antiviral Innate Immune System
Miller, C. (2014) · DigitalCommons (California Polytechnic State University) · Cited by 1
SNC–Coumarin is a Biocompatible Imaging Agent for In Vivo Labeling of Cells and Fluids
Ren, C., Ng, G. H. B., Li, X., & Teh, C. (2015) · Nano LIFE · doi:10.1142/s1793984415400048 · Cited by 1
Zebrafish Assays to Measure ADHD Endophenotypes
Chaminade, M., & Vernier, P. (2012) · Cited by 1
Remote focal scanning and sub-volume optical projection tomography
Watson, T. J., Andrews, N., Harry, E., Bugeon, L., Dallman, M. J., French, P. M. W., & McGinty, J. (2016) · Biomedical optics · doi:10.1364/cancer.2016.jm3a.15 · Cited by 1
Chapter The Role of Cyclooxygenases and Lipoxygenases in the Regulation of Tumor Angiogenesis
Pidgeon, G. P. (2013) · doi:10.1201/b14842-26 · Cited by 1
Allogeneic Transplantation of Testicular Hyperplasia in rag1 Mutant Zebrafish
Kawasaki, T., & Sakai, N. (2016) · BIO-PROTOCOL · doi:10.21769/bioprotoc.1992 · Cited by 1
Modeling Aging and Age-Associated Pathology in Zebrafish
houcke, J. V., Bollaerts, I., Groef, L. D., & Moons, L. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-811353-0.00025-7 · Cited by 1
Haraoka, Y., Akieda, Y., & Ishitani, T. (2019) · YAKUGAKU ZASSHI · doi:10.1248/yakushi.18-00185-1 · Cited by 1
Using Zebrafish to Study and Visualize Barriers of the CNS
Umans, R. A. (2019) · Neuromethods · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9944-6_5 · Cited by 1
Shoji, W. (2021) · Advances in experimental medicine and biology · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8763-4_21 · Cited by 1
Zebrafish as a model system to evaluate the safety and toxicity of nutraceuticals
Bian, W.-P., & Pei, D. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-821038-3.00027-6 · Cited by 1
Quantitative Nanostructure-Activity Relationship Models for the Risk Assessment of NanoMaterials
Vrontaki, E., Mavromoustakos, T., Melagraki, G., & Afantitis, A. (2016) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1762-7.ch050 · Cited by 1
Alternative Animal Models in Cancer Research
Meenu, M. S., Soumya, V. S., Mathew, J. M., & Panicker, S. P. (2022) · Handbook of Animal Models and its Uses in Cancer Research · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-1282-5_55-1 · Cited by 1
Preclinical Animal Models of Cancer: Applications and Limitations
Sharma, G. D., Goyal, Y., & Bhatia, S. (2022) · Handbook of Animal Models and its Uses in Cancer Research · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-1282-5_54-1 · Cited by 1
Animal Models in Cancer Research
Yusuf, K., Umar, S., & Ahmed, I. (2023) · Handbook of Animal Models and its Uses in Cancer Research · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3824-5_17 · Cited by 1
Sudduth, C. L., Blum, N., Smits, P. J., Cheng, Y. S., Vivero, M. P., Harris, M. P., Lawson, N. D., & Greene, A. K. (2023) · Journal of Vascular Anomalies · doi:10.1097/jova.0000000000000063 · Cited by 1
A versatile genetic-encoded reporter for magnetic resonance imaging
Yang, H., Qian, Z., Liu, C., Tie, C., Cai, A., Wang, J., Xing, Y., Xia, J., & Li, X. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14054 · Cited by 1
Learning from Zebrafish Hematopoiesis
Wu, M., Xu, J., Zhang, Y., & Wen, Z. (2023) · Advances in experimental medicine and biology · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-7471-9_9 · Cited by 1
Quadri, M., & Palazzo, E. (2024) · JID Innovations · doi:10.1016/j.xjidi.2024.100295 · Cited by 1
Progenitor activity within the zebrafish lateral line following cisplatin toxicity
Street, L. G. (2013) · Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) · Cited by 1
A Zebrafish Model of Uveal Melanoma
Rose, K. (2015) · Cited by 1
Hogan, A. L., Don, E. K., Fifita, J. A., Williams, K. L., Chung, R. S., Laird, A. S., Blair, I. P., & Cole, N. J. (2018) · Matters · doi:10.19185/matters.201802000012 · Cited by 1
Stimulation of metastatic activity of breast cancer cells by plasma exosomes
Samsonov, R. B., Коваленко, И. М., Vasilyev, D. A., Tsyrlina, E. V., Dashan, G. A., Shochat-Carvalho, C., Karasik, D., Berstein, L. M., Lutynskij, V. V., & Malek, A. V. (2016) · Russian Journal of Biotherapy · doi:10.17650/1726-9784-2016-15-2-6-15 · Cited by 1
Dhawan, T. (2019) · Cited by 1
Lieggi, C. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-812431-4.00035-x · Cited by 1
Correlations between oxidative stress and aligning nanoparticle safety assessments
Madkour, L. H. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-822481-6.00022-0 · Cited by 1
Zebrafish: An Emerging Model System in Toxicological Studies
Shrman, K. K. K., Meena, R. P. S. N. S., & Dinodia, N. (2021) · International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences · doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2021.1002.098 · Cited by 1
Analysis of Beta-cell Function Using Single-cell Resolution Calcium Imaging in Zebrafish Islets
Janjuha, S., Singh, S. P., & Ninov, N. (2018) · Journal of Visualized Experiments · doi:10.3791/57851-v · Cited by 1
Cancer Biomarkers and Targets in Digestive Organs
Yee, N. S., & Lee, N. P. Y. (2019) · MDPI eBooks · doi:10.3390/books978-3-03921-464-8 · Cited by 1
Lichtenegger, A., Mukherjee, P., Zhu, L., Makita, S., Leskovar, K., Distel, M., Yasuno, Y., & Baumann, B. (2022) · Optical Coherence Tomography and Coherence Domain Optical Methods in Biomedicine · doi:10.1117/12.2606982 · Cited by 1
Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cell Identification and Transplantation in Zebrafish
Fraint, E., Lv, P., Liu, F., Bowman, T. V., & Tamplin, O. J. (2022) · Methods in molecular biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2679-5_15 · Cited by 1
Self-citationAlternative Animal Models in Cancer Research
Meenu, M. S., Soumya, V. S., Mathew, J. M., & Panicker, S. P. (2023) · Handbook of Animal Models and its Uses in Cancer Research · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3824-5_55 · Cited by 1
Bayati, S., & ALMATLOB, I. (2023) · Zeugma Biological Science · doi:10.55549/zbs.1340942
Improving platinum-based treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Leung, A. W. Y. (2016) · cIRcle (University of British Columbia) · doi:10.14288/1.0308666 · Cited by 1
Evans, R. J., Pline, K., Loynes, C. A., Needs, S. H., Aldrovandi, M., Tiefenbach, J., Bielska, E., Rubino, R. E., Nicol, C. J., May, R. C., et al. (2017) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/113167 · Cited by 1
Chaplin, L. (2017) · QSpace (Queen's University Library) · Cited by 1
Zebrafish as a model to investigate the effects of exercise in cancerPreprint
Yin, A., Campbell, N. R., Jones, L. W., & White, R. M. (2018) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/279232 · Cited by 1
Self-citationGGA2 and RAB13 promote activity-dependent β1-integrin recyclingPreprint
Sahgal, P., Alanko, J., Icha, J., Paatero, I., Hamidi, H., Arjonen, A., Pietilä, M., Rokka, A., & Ivaska, J. (2018) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/353086 · Cited by 1
Leysi-Derilou, Y. (2011) · Corpus Université Laval (Université Laval) · Cited by 1
Pre-existent adult sox10 + cardiomyocytes contribute to myocardial regeneration in the zebrafishPreprint
Sande-Melón, M., Marques, I. J., Galardi‐Castilla, M., Langa, X., Pérez-López, M., Botos, M. A., Guzmán, G., Francisco, D. M. F., Pavlinić, D., Beneš, V., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/662536 · Cited by 1
Revskoy, S., Blair, M. E., Powell, S. M., Hausman, E. S., & Blackburn, J. S. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/806562 · Cited by 1
Tyrkalska, S. D., Pedoto, A., Martínez-López, A., Candel, S., Ros, J. A., Mesa-del-Castillo, P., & Mulero, V. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.05.04.490486 · Cited by 1
Functional and Genetic Analysis of Choroid Plexus Development in Zebrafish
Henson, H. E. (2014) · doi:10.21007/etd.cghs.2014.0134 · Cited by 1
Huang, T. H., Ma, Y., Montal, E. D., Suresh, S., Tagore, M. M., Corbin, A. F., Lumaquin, D., Campbell, N. R., Baggiolini, A., Koche, R. P., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.06.16.496450 · Cited by 1
Self-citationTyrkalska, S. D., Martínez‐López, A., Pedoto, A., Candel, S., Cayuela, M. L., & Mulero, V. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.14.500031 · Cited by 1
Live Imaging of Cutaneous Wound Healing in ZebrafishPreprint
Greenspan, L. J., Ameyaw, K. K., Castranova, D., Mertus, C. A., & Weinstein, B. M. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.11.07.515499 · Cited by 1
Duque, M., Chen, A., Hsu, E. T., Narayan, S., Rymbek, A., Begum, S., Saher, G., Cohen, A. E., Olson, D. E., Prober, D. A., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.29.522099 · Cited by 1
Bustillos, A., Arteaga, C., Contreras, L. F., Borja, R., & Loor, C. A. C. (2023) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202301.0321.v1 · Cited by 1
Engineering Nitroreductase Enzymes for Improved Cancer Gene Therapy and Targeted Cellular Ablation
Sharrock, A. V. (2019) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.22777160 · Cited by 1
Soos, B.-L., Ballinger, A., Weinstein, M., Foreman, H., Grampone, J., Weafer, S., Aylesworth, C., & King, B. L. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.10.31.564888 · Cited by 1
Daetwyler, S., Mazloom-Farsibaf, H., Zhou, F., Segal, D., Sapoznik, E., Westcott, J. M., Brekken, R. A., Danuser, G. M., & Fiolka, R. P. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.02.28.582579 · Cited by 1
Beaulieu, M. O., Thomas, E. D., & Raible, D. W. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.04.09.588777 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- White, R. M., Sessa, A., Burke, C., Bowman, T., LeBlanc, J., Ceol, C., Bourque, C., Dovey, M., Goessling, W., Burns, C. E., & Zon, L. I.
- Affiliations
- Boston Children's Hospital (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zon, Leonard I.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cell Stem Cell
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 183-189
- ISSN
- 1875-9777 (ISSN-L)
- 1934-5909
- PMC
- PMC2292119
- OpenAlex
- W2019751519
- Cited by
- 1,408
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 71 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 126 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 81 · 2017: 89 · 2016: 99 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 52
- FWCI
- 17.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (vor, 1993 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- Cell stem cell (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute
- American Society of Clinical Oncology
- National Institutes of Health
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA103846)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK053298)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Zebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
- Keywords
- hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, engraftment, metastasis, cancer stem cells, transgenic zebrafish
- MeSH terms
- Albinism, Animals, Flow Cytometry, Light, Neoplasm Transplantation, Pigmentation, Stem Cells, Zebrafish, Models, Animal, Stem Cell Transplantation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-02, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-02 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
