Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15231733›Full record

ReviewGenes & development2004

U2AF homology motifs: protein recognition in the RRM world.

Clara L Kielkopf, Stephan Lücke, Michael R Green

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes & development, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 147 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
147citing 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

147 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Contributions of Folded and Disordered Domains to RNA Binding by HNRNPR.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. TheFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. The structural landscape of Microprocessor mediated pri-bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

87 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

3 authors.

Clara L KielkopfDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA. ckielkop@jhsph.edu
Stephan Lücke
Michael R Green

Funding

Molecular Recognition During Pre-mRNA SplicingR01GM070503 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI KIELKOPF, CLARA · 2004 to 2025
$7.9M
JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR AIDS RESEARCHP30AI042855 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI BARTLETT, JOHN G · 2000 to 2005
$7.7M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI042855NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI42855NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM070503
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent structures of the heterodimeric splicing factor U2 snRNP auxiliary factor (U2AF) have revealed two unexpected examples of RNA recognition motif (RRM)-like domains with specialized features for protein recognition. These unusual RRMs, called U2AF homology motifs (UHMs), represent a novel class of protein recognition motifs. Defining a set of rules to distinguish traditional RRMs from UHMs is key to identifying novel UHM family members. Here we review the critical sequence features necessary to mediate protein-UHM interactions, and perform comprehensive database searches to identify new members of the UHM family. The resulting implications for the functional and evolutionary relationships among candidate UHM family members are discussed.

Indexed as

Amino Acid SequenceBinding SitesMolecular Sequence DataNuclear ProteinsRibonucleoproteinsRNASequence Homology, Amino AcidSplicing Factor U2AFNuclear ProteinsRibonucleoproteinsRNASplicing Factor U2AF

Identifiers

PMID15231733
PMCPMC2043112

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.