Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20036556›Full record

ReviewTrends in biochemical sciences2010

Alzheimer's disease: insights from Drosophila melanogaster models.

Aileen Moloney, David B Sattelle, David A Lomas, Damian C Crowther

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in biochemical sciences, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Journal of developmental biology · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Aileen MoloneyMRC Functional Genomics Unit, University of Oxford, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, South Parks Road, Oxford OX13QX.
David B Sattelle
David A Lomas
Damian C Crowther

Funding

Medical Research Council G0500306Medical Research Council G0700990Medical Research Council MC_U137761447Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The power of fruit fly genetics is being deployed against some of the most intractable and economically significant problems in modern medicine, the neurodegenerative diseases. Fly models of Alzheimer's disease can be exposed to the rich diversity of biological techniques that are available to the community and are providing new insights into disease mechanisms, and assisting in the identification of novel targets for therapy. Similar approaches might also help us to interpret the results of genome-wide association studies of human neurodegenerative diseases by allowing us to triage gene "hits" according to whether a candidate risk factor gene has a modifying effect on the disease phenotypes in fly model systems.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAlzheimer DiseaseAnimalsDrosophila melanogasterHumansMembrane ProteinsPhenotypetau ProteinsMAPT protein, humanMembrane Proteinstau Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20036556
PMCPMC2856915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.