The DOI matches its Crossref record; 104 of the 104 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Astrocyte scar formation aids central nervous system axon regeneration
Open accessAbstract
Transected axons fail to regrow in the mature central nervous system. Astrocytic scars are widely regarded as causal in this failure. Here, using three genetically targeted loss-of-function manipulations in adult mice, we show that preventing astrocyte scar formation, attenuating scar-forming astrocytes, or ablating chronic astrocytic scars all failed to result in spontaneous regrowth of transected corticospinal, sensory or serotonergic axons through severe spinal cord injury (SCI) lesions. By contrast, sustained local delivery via hydrogel depots of required axon-specific growth factors not present in SCI lesions, plus growth-activating priming injuries, stimulated robust, laminin-dependent sensory axon regrowth past scar-forming astrocytes and inhibitory molecules in SCI lesions. Preventing astrocytic scar formation significantly reduced this stimulated axon regrowth. RNA sequencing revealed that astrocytes and non-astrocyte cells in SCI lesions express multiple axon-growth-supporting molecules. Our findings show that contrary to the prevailing dogma, astrocyte scar formation aids rather than prevents central nervous system axon regeneration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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
“Such transcriptomic profiling specifically shows that reactive astrocytes adopt distinct molecular states in different disease models48,66–70, in different CNS regions70, and in brain tumors71.”
From Reactive astrocyte nomenclature, definitions, and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [48]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Likewise, reactive astrocytes are also diverse, as unequivocally demonstrated by microarray-based66–68 and RNAseq-based48,69–71 transcriptomic profiling of mouse bulk astrocytes48,66–70 or of astrocyte populations preselected according to cell-surface markers71.”
From Reactive astrocyte nomenclature, definitions, and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [48]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, activation of STAT3-dependent transcription is beneficial in neonatal white matter injury47, traumatic brain injury30, spinal cord injury48,49, and motor neuron injury50, but detrimental in AD models42,43.”
From Reactive astrocyte nomenclature, definitions, and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [48]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner
Dobin, A., Davis, C. A., Schlesinger, F., Drenkow, J., Zaleski, C., Jha, S., Batut, P., Chaisson, M., & Gingeras, T. R. (2013) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635 · Cited by 51,709
Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J., & Smyth, G. K. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 · Cited by 41,364
HTSeq—a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data
Anders, S., Pyl, P. T., & Huber, W. (2015) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu638 · Cited by 21,464
A robust and high-throughput Cre reporting and characterization system for the whole mouse brain
Madisen, L., Zwingman, T. A., Sunkin, S. M., Oh, S. W., Zariwala, H. A., Gu, H., Ng, L. L., Palmiter, R. D., Hawrylycz, M. J., Jones, A. R., et al. (2010) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2467 · Cited by 6,907
Zhang, Y., Chen, K., Sloan, S. A., Bennett, M. L., Scholze, A. R., O'Keeffe, S., Phatnani, H. P., Guarnieri, P., Caneda, C., Ruderisch, N., et al. (2014) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1860-14.2014 · Cited by 4,875
Regeneration beyond the glial scar
Silver, J., & Miller, J. H. (2004) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1326 · Cited by 3,151
Degeneration and Regeneration of the Nervous System.
(1929) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1929.02710220063037 · Cited by 2,908
Genomic analysis of reactive astrogliosis
Zamanian, J. L., Xu, L., Foo, L. C., Nouri, N., Zhou, L., Giffard, R. G., & Barres, B. A. (2012) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.6221-11.2012 · Cited by 2,404
David, S., & Aguayo, A. J. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.6171034 · Cited by 1,698
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,002 of 1,002
Zhao, Q., Ren, Y.-L., Zhu, Y.-J., Huang, R.-Q., Zhu, R.-R., Cheng, L.-M., & Xie, N. (2023) · Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncel.2023.1276506 · Cited by 15
Self-citationThe transcriptional and cellular landscape of cognitive resilience to Alzheimer’s disease
Khera, N., Raju, R. M., & Lipton, S. A. (2025) · Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnmol.2025.1665802 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, M. A., Burda, J. E., Ren, Y., Ao, Y., O’Shea, T. M., Kawaguchi, R., Coppola, G., Khakh, B. S., Deming, T. J., & Sofroniew, M. V.
- Affiliations
- Tongji University (CN)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sofroniew, Michael V.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2016-03-30
- Volume
- 532
- Issue
- 7598
- Pages
- 195-200
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- PMC
- PMC5243141
- OpenAlex
- W2335534790
- Cited by
- 1,851
- References
- 104
- Citations by year
- 2026: 116 · 2025: 163 · 2024: 180 · 2023: 159 · 2022: 234 · 2021: 250 · 2020: 224 · 2019: 159 · 2018: 162 · 2017: 136 · 2016: 62
- FWCI
- 97.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH099559, MH104069, MH099559A, DP1MH104069)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS084030, NS057624, NS060677, R01NS060677, R01NS057624, P30NS062691, R01NS084030)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Spinal Cord Injury Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
- Keywords
- axon regeneration, spinal cord injury, central nervous system injury, corticospinal axons, sensory axons, serotonergic axons, hydrogel delivery, laminin, axon growth inhibition, astrocytes
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Astrocytes, Axons, Central Nervous System, Cicatrix, Female, Models, Biological, Nerve Regeneration, Chondroitin Sulfate Proteoglycans, Spinal Cord Injuries, Reproducibility of Results, Genomics, Mice
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.
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
