Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20846362›Full record

ReviewFEMS microbiology letters2011

From Saccharomyces cerevisiae to Candida glabratain a few easy steps: important adaptations for an opportunistic pathogen.

Andreas Roetzer, Toni Gabaldón, Christoph Schüller

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in FEMS microbiology letters, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 148 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. EditingBiomolecules · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Natural product based approaches to overcomeFrontiers in antibiotics · 2026
    Review
  5. Multidistrict invasiveFrontiers in medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Multi-step pathway engineering in probioticMetabolic engineering communications · 2025
    Article
  9. Biochemical and Physiological Profiles ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Evaluation of Fifteen 5,6-Dihydrotetrazolo[1,5-Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Glyceraldehyde 3-Phosphate Dehydrogenase on the Surface ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andreas RoetzerMax F. Perutz Laboratories, Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Toni Gabaldón
Christoph Schüller
Centre for Genomic Regulation · ESMax Perutz Labs · AT

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 19966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The opportunistic human fungal pathogen Candida glabrata is closely related to Saccharomyces cerevisiae, yet it has evolved to survive within mammalian hosts. Which traits help C. glabrata to adapt to this different environment? Which specific responses are crucial for its survival in the host? The main differences seem to include an extended repertoire of adhesin genes, high drug resistance, an enhanced ability to sustain prolonged starvation and adaptations of the transcriptional wiring of key stress response genes. Here, we discuss the properties of C. glabrata with a focus on the differences to related fungi.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsCandida glabrataCandidiasisFungal ProteinsGene Expression Regulation, FungalHumansPhylogenySaccharomyces cerevisiaeFungal Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20846362
PMCPMC3015064
OpenAlexW1941779326

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.