ReviewCurrent opinion in cell biology2010
FRAP and kinetic modeling in the analysis of nuclear protein dynamics: what do we really know?
Review in Current opinion in cell biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
100 citing papers in PubMed.
- Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation (LLPS) in Tumor Biology: Special Focus on the Process of Transcription.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- VEGFR2 dimerization kinetics on the cell surface determined by microscopy and mathematical modeling.Biophysical journal · 2026Article
- Graph neural network modeling of receptor interaction kinetics from single-molecule imaging data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Review
- Inferring diffusion, reaction, and exchange parameters from imperfect FRAP.Biophysical journal · 2025Article
- Quantitative Nanometrology of Binary Particle Systems Using Fluorescence Recovery after Photobleaching: Application to Colloidal Silica.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2025Article
- Nonlinear mixed-effects models to analyze actin dynamics in dendritic spines.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- What's past is prologue: FRAP keeps delivering 50 years later.Biophysical journal · 2023Review
- 3D photopolymerized microstructured scaffolds influence nuclear deformation, nucleo/cytoskeletal protein organization, and gene regulation in mesenchymal stem cells.APL bioengineering · 2023Article
- From the membrane to the nucleus: mechanical signals and transcription regulation.Biophysical reviews · 2023Review
- A bending rigidity parameter for stress granule condensates.Science advances · 2023Article
- The Utility of Fluorescence Recovery after Photobleaching (FRAP) to Study the Plasma Membrane.Membranes · 2023Review
- Microdomains heterogeneity in the thylakoid membrane proteins visualized by super-resolution microscopy.Photosynthetica · 2023Article
- Dynamic Mode Decomposition of Fluorescence Loss in Photobleaching Microscopy Data for Model-Free Analysis of Protein Transport and Aggregation in Living Cells.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Review
- Regression Analysis of Confocal FRAP and its Application to Diffusion in Membranes.Journal of fluorescence · 2022Article
- Use of Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP) to Measure In Vivo Dynamics of Cell Junction-Associated Polarity Proteins.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- A Protocol for Studying Transcription Factor Dynamics Using Fast Single-Particle Tracking and Spot-On Model-Based Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Bound2Learn: a machine learning approach for classification of DNA-bound proteins from single-molecule tracking experiments.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- Parameter estimation in fluorescence recovery after photobleaching: quantitative analysis of protein binding reactions and diffusion.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021Article
40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The binding of nuclear proteins to chromatin in live cells has been analyzed by kinetic modeling procedures applied to experimental data from fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP). The kinetic models have yielded a number of important biological predictions about transcription, but concerns have arisen about the accuracy of these predictions. First, different studies using different kinetic models have arrived at very different predictions for the same or similar proteins. Second, some of these divergent predictions have been shown to arise from technical issues rather than biological differences. For confidence and accuracy, gold standards for the measurement of in vivo binding must be established by extensive cross validation using both different experimental methods and different kinetic modeling procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.