DNA binding by bacterial nucleoid proteins and the DNA overstretching transition. Comment on "Biophysical characterization of DNA binding from single molecule force measurements" by Mark C. Williams et al.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

1. DNA stretching as a probe for nucleic acid interactions: Reply to Comments on "Biophysical characterization of DNA binding from single molecule force measurements" by Kathy R. Chaurasiya, Thayaparan Paramanathan, Micah J. McCauley, Mark C. Williams.Physics of life reviews · 2010
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Biophysical characterization of DNA binding from single molecule force measurements.2010

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as