Swatting flies: modelling wound healing and inflammation in Drosophila
Open accessAbstract
Aberrant wound healing can lead to a variety of human pathologies, from non-healing chronic wounds that can become dangerously infected, to exuberant fibrotic healing in which repair is accompanied by excessive inflammation. To guide therapeutic intervention, we need a better understanding of the fundamental mechanisms driving tissue repair; this will require complementary wound-healing studies in several model organisms. Drosophila has been used to model genetic aspects of numerous human pathologies, and is being used increasingly to gain insight into the molecular and genetic aspects of tissue repair and inflammation, which have classically been modelled in mice or cultured cells. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Drosophila as a wound-healing model, as well as some exciting new research opportunities that will be enabled by its use.
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
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?
Drosophila and zebrafish models offer unique possibilities such as live imaging due to translucency and genome-wide screens due to genetic tractability and low cost.
“These models offer unique possibilities, e.g., to perform live imaging, due to their translucency, and genome-wide screen, due to their good genetic tractability and low cost.”
From Transition from inflammation to proliferation: a critical step during wound healing (2016) · cites this paper as [268]
The sections “Live imaging of the signals and mechanical forces at play during wound repair” and “What flies are best at: screening for new genes” support live imaging in translucent Drosophila embryos and pupae and large-scale genetic screens in flies. The paper does not establish these advantages for zebrafish, describe the screens as genome-wide, or give low cost as a reason for them. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecently, Drosophila and zebrafish are used to investigate mechanisms of fundamental tissue repair.
“Recently, Drosophila and zebrafish are used to investigate mechanisms of fundamental tissue repair [267, 268].”
From Transition from inflammation to proliferation: a critical step during wound healing (2016) · cites this paper as [268]
Drosophila and zebrafish models offer translucency for live imaging and greater genetic tractability than mice, enabling study of fundamental tissue repair mechanisms not possible in humans.
“Although they have their own limitations, Drosophila and zebrafish models offer translucency for live imaging and even greater genetic tractability than mice, to study fundamental tissue repair mechanisms not possible in humans.”
From Wound repair and regeneration: Mechanisms, signaling, and translation (2014) · cites this paper as [117]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 92
- Authors
- Razzell, W., Wood, W., & Martin, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- University of Bath (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Razzell, William
- Venue
- Disease Models & Mechanisms
- Publisher
- The Company of Biologists
- Published
- 2011-09-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 569-574
- ISSN
- 1754-8403 (ISSN-L)
- 1754-8411
- PMC
- PMC3180219
- OpenAlex
- W2165599246
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 0.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Disease Models & Mechanisms (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (090899)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
- Keywords
- wound healing, inflammation, Drosophila, tissue repair, chronic wounds, fibrosis, genetic disease models
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Drosophila, Epithelium, Inflammation, Wound Healing, Signal Transduction
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
