Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12554869›Full record

ReviewRNA (New York, N.Y.)2003

Nuclear translation: what is the evidence?

James E Dahlberg, Elsebet Lund, Elizabeth B Goodwin

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in RNA (New York, N.Y.), 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Major histocompatibility class I antigenic peptides derived from translation of pre-mRNAs generate immune tolerance.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cellular maintenance of nuclear protein homeostasis.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2014
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

James E DahlbergDepartment of Biomolecular Chemistry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 53706, USA. dahlberg@wisc.edu
Elsebet Lund
Elizabeth B Goodwin
Molecular Research Institute · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USUniversity of Wisconsin System · US

Funding

RNAS AND PROTEINS BETWEEN THE NUCLEUS AND CYTOPLASMR37GM030220 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON · PI DAHLBERG, JAMES E · 1998 to 2005
$3.1M
3 UTR CONTROL OF TRA-2 TRANSLATION IN C ELEGANSR01GM051836 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON · PI GOODWIN, ELIZABETH B. · 1995 to 2005
$1.9M
STRUCTURE, ORGANIZATION, AND EXPRESSION OF SNRNA GENESR01GM030220 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON · PI DAHLBERG, JAMES E · 1985 to 1997
–
NIGMS NIH HHS GM30220NIGMS NIH HHS GM51836NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM051836NIGMS NIH HHS R37 GM030220
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, several reports have been published in support of the idea that protein synthesis occurs in both the nucleus and the cytoplasm. This proposal has generated a great deal of excitement because, if true, it would mean that our thinking about the compartmentalization of cell functions would have to be re-evaluated. The significance and broad implications of this phenomenon require that the experimental evidence used to support it be carefully evaluated. Here, we critique the published evidence in support of, or in opposition to, the question of whether translation occurs in the nucleus. Arguments in support of nuclear translation focus on three issues: (1) the presence of translation factors and ribosomal components in the nucleus, and their recruitment to sites of transcription; (2) amino acid incorporation in isolated nuclei and in nuclei under conditions that should not permit protein import; and (3) the fact that nuclear translation would account for observations that are otherwise difficult to explain. Arguments against nuclear translation emphasize the absence (or low abundance) from nuclei of many translation factors; the likely inactivity of nascent ribosomes; and the loss of translation activity as nuclei are purified from contaminating cytoplasm. In our opinion, all of the experiments on nuclear translation published to date lack critical controls and, therefore, are not compelling; also, traditional mechanisms can explain the observations for which nuclear translation has been invoked. Thus, while we cannot rule out nuclear translation, in the absence of better supporting data we are reluctant to believe it occurs.

Indexed as

Protein BiosynthesisCell NucleusGene Expression

Identifiers

PMID12554869
PMCPMC1370363
OpenAlexW2143627404

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.