Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20951587›Full record

ReviewTrends in cell biology2011

Kinetochores' gripping feat: conformational wave or biased diffusion?

Charles L Asbury, Jerry F Tien, Trisha N Davis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cell biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Structure and function of the outer kinetochore.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Structural plasticity of the living kinetochore.The Journal of cell biology · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Microtubule-based force generation.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2017
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors.

Charles L AsburyDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. casbury@uw.edu
Jerry F Tien
Trisha N Davis

Funding

MOLECULAR ANALYSIS OF THE SPINDLE POLE BODYR01GM040506 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DAVIS, TRISHA N. · 1988 to 2018
$8.6M
Supplement to Biophysical Study of Reconstituted Kinetochore-microtubule AttachmentsR01GM079373 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ASBURY, CHARLES · 2006 to 2019
$4.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM040506NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM079373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Climbing up a cliff while the rope unravels underneath your fingers does not sound like a well-planned adventure. Yet chromosomes face a similar challenge during each cell division. Their alignment and accurate segregation depends on staying attached to the assembling and disassembling tips of microtubule fibers. This coupling is mediated by kinetochores, intricate machines that attach chromosomes to an ever-changing microtubule substrate. Two models for kinetochore-microtubule coupling were proposed a quarter century ago: conformational wave and biased diffusion. These models differ in their predictions for how coupling is performed and regulated. The availability of purified kinetochore proteins has enabled biochemical and biophysical analyses of the kinetochore-microtubule interface. Here, we discuss what these studies reveal about the contributions of each model.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell CycleHumansKinetochoresMicrotubulesModels, Biological

Identifiers

PMID20951587
PMCPMC3075839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.