Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11175778›Full record

ReviewNature genetics2001

A genetic approach to understanding auditory function.

K P Steel, C J Kros

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature genetics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Stem Cell-Based Therapies in Hearing Loss.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. The genetic dissection ofMolecular vision · 2018
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Genetics of Deafness in Domestic Animals.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2015
    Review
  20. Basilar membrane and tectorial membrane stiffness in the CBA/CaJ mouse.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2014
    Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

K P SteelMedical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. karen@ihr.mrc.ac.uk
C J Kros

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Little is known of the molecular basis of normal auditory function. In contrast to the visual or olfactory senses, in which reasonable amounts of sensory tissue can be gathered, the auditory system has proven difficult to access through biochemical routes, mainly because such small amounts of tissue are available for analysis. Key molecules, such as the transduction channel, may be present in only a few tens of copies per sensory hair cell, compounding the difficulty. Moreover, fundamental differences in the mechanism of stimulation and, most importantly, the speed of response of audition compared with other senses means that we have no well-understood models to provide good candidate molecules for investigation. For these reasons, a genetic approach is useful for identifying the key components of auditory transduction, as it makes no assumptions about the nature or expression level of molecules essential for hearing. We review here some of the major advances in our understanding of auditory function resulting from the recent rapid progress in identification of genes involved in deafness.

Indexed as

CochleaCochlear DuctDeafnessHair Cells, AuditoryHearingHomeostasisModels, BiologicalOrgan of CortiSignal TransductionSynapsesTectorial Membrane

Identifiers

PMID11175778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.