Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15922833›Full record

ReviewTrends in genetics : TIG2005

Transcriptional interference--a crash course.

Keith E Shearwin, Benjamin P Callen, J Barry Egan

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in genetics : TIG, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 341 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
341citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

341 citing papers in PubMed, 576 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Metamorphosis and lncRNAs: A Close Relationship.Genesis (New York, N.Y. : 2000) · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Transcriptional Readthrough atbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

281 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Keith E ShearwinSchool of Molecular and Biomedical Science, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia 5005. keith.shearwin@adalaide.edu.au
Benjamin P Callen
J Barry Egan
University of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Transcriptional Interference in Gene Regulatory DecisionsR01GM062976 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE · PI EGAN, JOHN BARRY · 2003 to 2008
$833k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM062976
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The term "transcriptional interference" (TI) is widely used but poorly defined in the literature. There are a variety of methods by which one can interfere with the process or the product of transcription but the term TI usually refers to the direct negative impact of one transcriptional activity on a second transcriptional activity in cis. Two recent studies, one examining Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the other Escherichia coli, clearly show TI at one promoter caused by the arrival of a transcribing complex initiating at a distant promoter. TI is potentially widespread throughout biology; therefore, it is timely to assess exactly its nature, significance and operative mechanisms. In this article, we will address the following questions: what is TI, how important and widespread is it, how does it work and where should we focus our future research efforts?

Indexed as

Transcription, GeneticEscherichia coliPromoter Regions, GeneticRNA InterferenceSaccharomyces cerevisiae

Identifiers

PMID15922833
PMCPMC2941638
OpenAlexW2005506831

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.