Cited by 207Planarian Biology and ElectrostimulationDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationWound Healing and Treatments

Lack of p21 expression links cell cycle control and appendage regeneration in mice

Open access
Bedelbaeva, Khamilia, Snyder, Andrew, Gourevitch, Dmitri, Clark, Lise, Zhang, Xiang-Ming, Leferovich, John, Cheverud, James M., Lieberman, Paul +1 more·2010·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Animals capable of regenerating multiple tissue types, organs, and appendages after injury are common yet sporadic and include some sponge, hydra, planarian, and salamander (i.e., newt and axolotl) species, but notably such regenerative capacity is rare in mammals. The adult MRL mouse strain is a rare exception to the rule that mammals do not regenerate appendage tissue. Certain commonalities, such as blastema formation and basement membrane breakdown at the wound site, suggest that MRL mice may share other features with classical regenerators. As reported here, MRL fibroblast-like cells have a distinct cell-cycle (G2/M accumulation) phenotype and a heightened basal and wound site DNA damage/repair response that is also common to classical regenerators and mammalian embryonic stem cells. Additionally, a neutral and alkaline comet assay displayed a persistent level of intrinsic DNA damage in cells derived from the MRL mouse. Similar to mouse ES cells, the p53-target p21 was not expressed in MRL ear fibroblasts. Because the p53/p21 axis plays a central role in the DNA damage response and cell cycle control, we directly tested the hypothesis that p21 down-regulation could functionally induce a regenerative response in an appendage of an otherwise nonregenerating mouse strain. Using the ear hole closure phenotype, a genetically mapped and reliable quantitative indicator of regeneration in the MRL mouse, we show that the unrelated Cdkn1a tmi/Tyj /J p21 −/− mouse (unlike the B6129SF2/J WT control) closes ear holes similar to MRL mice, providing a firm link between cell cycle checkpoint control and tissue regeneration.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1000830107

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bedelbaeva, K., Snyder, A., Gourevitch, D., Clark, L., Zhang, X.-M., Leferovich, J., Cheverud, J. M., Lieberman, P., & Heber-Katz, E.
Affiliations
  • The Wistar Institute (US)
  • Cellular and Molecular Oncogenesis and Gene Expression, The Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, PA 19104; and
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2010-03-15
Volume
107
Issue
13
Pages
5845-5850
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2120729899
Cited by
207
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 17
FWCI
7.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • F. M. Kirby Foundation
  • James N. Kirby Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (CA 10815)
  • National Cancer Institute ((P30 CA10815, CA-10815, P30CA010815)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM073226, GM073226)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Planarian Biology and Electrostimulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
Keywords
p21, p53, appendage regeneration, cell cycle regulation, DNA damage response, fibroblasts, blastema formation, wound healing, cell cycle checkpoints, DNA repair
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Cycle, Cell Division, DNA Damage, DNA Repair, Extremities, Female, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Regeneration, Tumor Suppressor Protein p53, G2 Phase, Apoptosis, Mice, Knockout, Mice, Congenic, Cell Proliferation, Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p21, Rad51 Recombinase, Mice, Protein Stability, In Vitro Techniques

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