Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 432

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systemic administration of epothilone B promotes axon regeneration after spinal cord injury

Open access
Ruschel, Jörg, Hellal, Farida, Flynn, Kevin C., Dupraz, Sebastian, Elliott, David A., Tedeschi, Andrea, Bates, Margaret, Sliwinski, Christopher, Brook, Gary, Dobrindt, Kristina, Peitz, Michael, Brüstle, Oliver, Norenberg, Michael D., Blesch, Armin, Weidner, Norbert, Bunge, Mary Bartlett, Bixby, John L., Bradke, Frank·2015·Science

Abstract

Progress toward fixing a broken back?: Axon regeneration after a spinal cord injury requires interference with neuronal mechanisms to promote axon extension and early suppression of scar formation. Microtubule stabilization could provide, in principle, a basis for such intervention. Ruschel et al. used animal models of spinal cord injury, time-lapse imaging in vivo, primary neuronal cultures, and behavioral studies to tackle this challenge (see the Perspective by Tran and Silver). They showed that epothilone B, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved microtubule-stabilizing drug that can cross the blood-brain barrier, does promote functional axon regeneration, even after injury. Science , this issue p. 347 ; see also p. 285

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.aaa2958

Cites

11 of 11 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

Cited by

See all 432

Metadata

Authors
Ruschel, J., Hellal, F., Flynn, K. C., Dupraz, S., Elliott, D. A., Tedeschi, A., Bates, M., Sliwinski, C., Brook, G., Dobrindt, K., Peitz, M., Brüstle, O., Norenberg, M. D., Blesch, A., Weidner, N., Bunge, M. B., Bixby, J. L., & Bradke, F.
Venue
Science
Published
2015-04-17
Volume
348
Issue
6232
Pages
347-352
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2017856054
Cited by
432
References
11
FWCI
21.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.