Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12739049›Full record

ReviewCurrent genetics2003

Genetic conservation versus variability in mitochondria: the architecture of the mitochondrial genome in the petite-negative yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe.

Bernd Schäfer

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current genetics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Structure and function of theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bernd SchäferDepartment of Biology IV (Microbiology), Aachen Technical University, Worringer Weg, 52056 Aachen, Germany. bernd.schaefer@rwth-aachen.de
RWTH Aachen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The great amount of molecular information and the many molecular genetic techniques available make Schizosaccharomyces pombe an ideal model eukaryote, complementary to the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In particular, mechanisms involved in mitochiondrial (mt) biogenesis in fission yeast are more similar to higher eukaryotes than to budding yeast. In this review, recent findings on mt morphogenesis, DNA replication and gene expression in this model organism are summarised. A second aspect is the organisation of the mt genome in fission yeast. On the one hand, fission yeast has a strong tendency to maintain mtDNA intact; and, on the other hand, the mt genomes of naturally occurring strains show a great variability. Therefore, the molecular mechanisms behind the susceptibility to mutations in the mtDNA and the mechanisms that promote sequence variations during the evolution of the genome in fission yeast mitochondria are discussed.

Indexed as

Gene ExpressionDNA, MitochondrialDNA ReplicationEndonucleasesGenetic VariationIntronsMitochondriaRetroelementsSchizosaccharomycesDNA, MitochondrialEndonucleasesRetroelements

Identifiers

PMID12739049
OpenAlexW1576667374

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.