Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,125

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Nerve Growth Factor 35 Years Later

Levi-Montalcini, Rita·1987·Science

Abstract

Embryogenesis is in some way a model system. It has always been distinguished by the exactitude even punctitio, of its anatomical descriptions. An experiment by one of the great masters of embryology could be made the text of a discourse on scientific method. But something is wrong, or has been wrong. There is no theory of development in the sense in which Mendelism is a theory that accounts for the results of breeding experiments. There has therefore been little sense of progression or timeliness about embryological research. Of many papers delivered at embryological meetings, however good they may be in themselves . . . one too often feels that they might have been delivered five years beforehand without making anyone much the wiser, or deferred for five years without making anyone conscious of a great (1). This feeling of frustration so incisively conveyed by these considerations by P. Medawar, pervaded, in the forties, the field of experimental embryology which had been enthusiastically acclaimed in the mid-thirties, when the upper lip of the amphibian blastopore brought this area of research to the forefront of the biological stage. The side branch of experimental neuroembryology, which had stemmed out from the common tree and was entirely devoted to the study of the tropic interrelations between neuronal cell populations and between these and the innervated organs and tissues, was then in its initial vigorous growth phase. It in turn suffered from a sharp decrease in the enthusiasm that had inflamed the pioneers in this field, ever since R. G. Harrison delivered his celebrated lecture on this topic at the Royal Society in London in 1935 (2). Although the alternate wax and cycles are the rule rather than the exception in all fields of human endeavor, in that of biological sciences the wane is all too often indicative of a justified loss of faith in the rational and methodical approach that had at first raised so much hope. A brief account of the state-of-the-art of experimental neuroembryology in the

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.3306916

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 3,125

Metadata

Authors
Levi-Montalcini, R.
Venue
Science
Published
1987-09-04
Volume
237
Issue
4819
Pages
1154-1162
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2063695629
Cited by
3,125
References
2
FWCI
19.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Nerve Growth Factor 35 Years Later. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.3306916
The paper
Levi-Montalcini, R. (1987). The Nerve Growth Factor 35 Years Later. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3306916

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.