Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18216875›Full record

ReviewThe EMBO journal2008

Chaperones in control of protein disaggregation.

Krzysztof Liberek, Agnieszka Lewandowska, Szymon Zietkiewicz

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The EMBO journal, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 157 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
157citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
18.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

157 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 416 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. PsammophytesPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  20. Article

97 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Krzysztof LiberekDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Faculty of Biotechnology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland. liberek@biotech.ug.gda.pl
Agnieszka Lewandowska
Szymon Zietkiewicz
University of Gdańsk · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The chaperone protein network controls both initial protein folding and subsequent maintenance of proteins in the cell. Although the native structure of a protein is principally encoded in its amino-acid sequence, the process of folding in vivo very often requires the assistance of molecular chaperones. Chaperones also play a role in a post-translational quality control system and thus are required to maintain the proper conformation of proteins under changing environmental conditions. Many factors leading to unfolding and misfolding of proteins eventually result in protein aggregation. Stress imposed by high temperature was one of the first aggregation-inducing factors studied and remains one of the main models in this field. With massive protein aggregation occurring in response to heat exposure, the cell needs chaperones to control and counteract the aggregation process. Elimination of aggregates can be achieved by solubilization of aggregates and either refolding of the liberated polypeptides or their proteolysis. Here, we focus on the molecular mechanisms by which heat-shock protein 70 (Hsp70), Hsp100 and small Hsp chaperones liberate and refold polypeptides trapped in protein aggregates.

Indexed as

Heat-Shock ProteinsModels, BiologicalMolecular ChaperonesProtein DenaturationProtein FoldingHeat-Shock ProteinsMolecular Chaperones

Identifiers

PMID18216875
PMCPMC2234349
OpenAlexW2062699359

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.