Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12955224›Full record

ReviewDie Naturwissenschaften2003

RNA interference: from an ancient mechanism to a state of the art therapeutic application?

Christoph Arenz, Ute Schepers

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Die Naturwissenschaften, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Effects of length and location on the cellular response to double-stranded RNA.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2004
    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

2 authors.

Christoph ArenzKekulé-Institut für Organische Chemie und Biochemie, Universität Bonn, Gerhard Domagk Strasse 1, 53121 Bonn, Germany.
Ute Schepers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Now that the sequencing of many genomes has been completed, the basic challenges are finding the genes and predicting their functions. Up until now, a large information gap has existed between the knowledge of genome sequence and our knowledge of protein function. The assessment of gene function may be performed using the tools of reverse genetics, including knock-out mice, antisense oligomers, aptamers, and ribozymes. These approaches have been superseded by RNA interference (RNAi), which exhibits much more potency for the investigation of protein function than the techniques listed above. As already known some years ago, RNAi is based on an ancient anti-viral defense mechanism in lower eukaryotes. It is induced by double-stranded RNA and its processing to 21-23 nt small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), which cause the degradation of homologous endogenous mRNA. The way RNAi works has still to be determined, but it already serves as a first-choice approach to generate loss-of-function phenotypes among a broad variety of eukaryotic species, such as nematodes, flies, plants, fungi and mammals. RNAi also represents an extremely powerful tool, becoming a therapeutic approach to curing infectious diseases originated by viral or parasitic invasion. In this review we present the current view of how RNAi works in different eukaryotic species and its high potential for functional genomics and in rational drug design.

Indexed as

AnimalsGene Expression RegulationHIVHumansMammalsPlantsRNA-Dependent RNA PolymeraseRNA, Small InterferingRNA-Dependent RNA PolymeraseRNA, Small Interfering

Identifiers

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.