Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19109308›Full record

ReviewBriefings in functional genomics & proteomics2008

Transposon tools hopping in vertebrates.

Jun Ni, Karl J Clark, Scott C Fahrenkrug, Stephen C Ekker

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in functional genomics & proteomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Rat and Mouse Brain Tumor Models for Experimental Neuro-Oncology Research.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2022
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Genetic Modification of Brain Organoids.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Genome editing and genetic engineering in livestock for advancing agricultural and biomedical applications.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2017
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jun NiDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Karl J Clark
Scott C Fahrenkrug
Stephen C Ekker
Mayo Clinic · USWinnMed · US

Funding

Intron-based Mutagenic Transposons for ZebrafishR01DA014546 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI EKKER, STEPHEN CARL · 2001 to 2011
$3.5M
NIDA NIH HHS DA14546NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA014546
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past decade, tools derived from DNA transposons have made major contributions to vertebrate genetic studies from gene delivery to gene discovery. Multiple, highly complementary systems have been developed, and many more are in the pipeline. Judging which DNA transposon element will work the best in diverse uses from zebrafish genetic manipulation to human gene therapy is currently a complex task. We have summarized the major transposon vector systems active in vertebrates, comparing and contrasting known critical biochemical and in vivo properties, for future tool design and new genetic applications.

Indexed as

DNA Transposable ElementsModels, BiologicalAnimalsDNAGenetic VectorsGene Transfer TechniquesZebrafishDNADNA Transposable Elements

Identifiers

PMID19109308
PMCPMC2722259
OpenAlexW2108349365

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.