Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16452296›Full record

ReviewNucleic acids research2006

Degradation of RNA in bacteria: comparison of mRNA and stable RNA.

Murray P Deutscher

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nucleic acids research, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 208 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
208citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

208 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. RNA exoribonucleases in E. coli.Archives of microbiology · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Molecular biology of the cell · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

148 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

1 author.

Murray P DeutscherDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami School of Medicine, PO Box 016129, Miami, FL 33101-6129, USA. mdeutsch@med.miami.edu

Funding

RNases and RNA Metabolism in BacteriaR01GM016317 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI DEUTSCHER, MURRAY P · 1985 to 2019
$9.1M
GTP BINDING PROTEIN ACTIVATORF32GM016317 · NIGMS · U.S. NATIONAL INST/CHILD HLTH/HUMAN DEV · PI OOI, CHEAN E · 1993 to 1995
–
NIGMS NIH HHS F32 GM016317NIGMS NIH HHS GM16317NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM016317
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Degradation of RNA plays a central role in RNA metabolism. In recent years, our knowledge of the mechanisms of RNA degradation has increased considerably with discovery of the participating RNases and analysis of mutants affected in the various degradative pathways. Among these processes, mRNA decay and stable RNA degradation generally have been considered distinct, and also separate from RNA maturation. In this review, each of these processes is described, as it is currently understood in bacteria. The picture that emerges is that decay of mRNA and degradation of stable RNA share many common features, and that their initial steps also overlap with those of RNA maturation. Thus, bacterial cells do not contain dedicated machinery for degradation of different classes of RNA or for different processes. Rather, only the specificity of the RNase and the accessibility of the substrate determine whether or not a particular RNA will be acted upon.

Indexed as

RNA StabilityBacteriaRibonucleasesRNA, BacterialRNA, MessengerRNA Processing, Post-TranscriptionalRibonucleasesRNA, BacterialRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID16452296
PMCPMC1360286

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.