Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15035043›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2003

The versatile bacterial type IV secretion systems.

Eric Cascales, Peter J Christie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 334 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
334citing 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

334 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Phenotypic divergence is driven by mobile genetic elements in a heritable insect symbiont.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Control of antigen presentation on MHC-I by a bacterial secretion system.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. In situ structures of theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Biology · 2025
    Article
  14. Conjugative delivery of toxin genesJournal of bacteriology · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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.

Eric CascalesDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of Texas-Houston Medical School, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
Peter J Christie

Funding

TRANSLOCATION OF DNA ACROSS THE AGROBACTERIUM ENVELOPER01GM048746 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI CHRISTIE, PETER J. · 1998 to 2018
$6.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM048746
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacteria use type IV secretion systems for two fundamental objectives related to pathogenesis--genetic exchange and the delivery of effector molecules to eukaryotic target cells. Whereas gene acquisition is an important adaptive mechanism that enables pathogens to cope with a changing environment during invasion of the host, interactions between effector and host molecules can suppress defence mechanisms, facilitate intracellular growth and even induce the synthesis of nutrients that are beneficial to bacterial colonization. Rapid progress has been made towards defining the structures and functions of type IV secretion machines, identifying the effector molecules, and elucidating the mechanisms by which the translocated effectors subvert eukaryotic cellular processes during infection.

Indexed as

Bacterial ProteinsBiological TransportConjugation, GeneticGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansPlant DiseasesVirulenceBacterial Proteins

Identifiers

PMID15035043
PMCPMC3873781

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.