Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15838522›Full record

ReviewOncogene2005

Cell cycle in mouse development.

Maria A Ciemerych, Peter Sicinski

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Oncogene, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 153 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria A CiemerychDepartment of Embryology, Institute of Zoology, Faculty of Biology, Warsaw University, Miecznikowa 1, 02-096 Warsaw, Poland.
Peter Sicinski
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · US

Funding

ROLE OF CYCLINS D2 AND D3 IN LYPHIOD CELL PROLIFERATIONR01CA085296 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI SICINSKI, PIOTR · 2000 to 2004
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA085296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mice likely represent the most-studied mammalian organism, except for humans. Genetic engineering in embryonic stem cells has allowed derivation of mouse strains lacking particular cell cycle proteins. Analyses of these mutant mice, and cells derived from them, facilitated the studies of the functions of cell cycle apparatus at the organismal and cellular levels. In this review, we give some background about the cell cycle progression during mouse development. We next discuss some insights about in vivo functions of the cell cycle proteins, gleaned from mouse knockout experiments. Our text is meant to provide examples of the recent experiments, rather than to supply an extensive and complete list.

Indexed as

Cell CycleEmbryonic DevelopmentAnimalsCell Cycle ProteinsMiceMice, Mutant StrainsCell Cycle Proteins

Identifiers

PMID15838522
OpenAlexW2002840452

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.