Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21124006›Full record

ReviewDevelopmental neuroscience2011

A tale of tailless.

Hongxing Gui, Mei-Ling Li, Chih-Cheng Tsai

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Developmental neuroscience, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The orphan nuclear receptors at their 25-year reunion.Journal of molecular endocrinology · 2013
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The evolution of novelty in conserved gene families.International journal of evolutionary biology · 2012
    Article
  20. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Hongxing GuiDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, N.J., USA. gui@biology.rutgers.edu
Mei-Ling Li
Chih-Cheng Tsai
Johnson University · US

Funding

Molecular Mechanisms of Ataxin-1 ActionR01NS050365 · NINDS · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI TSAI, CHIH-CHENG · 2007 to 2010
$1.1M
NINDS NIH HHS 5R01NS050365NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS050365
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drosophila Tailless(Tll) and its vertebrate homologue Tlx are conserved orphan nuclear receptors specifically expressed in the eye and the forebrain. Tll and Tlx act primarily as transcriptional repressors through their interactions with transcriptional corepressors, Atrophin family proteins, and histone-tail/chromatin-modifying factors such as lysine-specific histone demethylase 1 and histone deacetylases. The functional importance of Tll and Tlx is made apparent by the recent discovery that they are expressed in neural stem cells (NSCs) and are required for self-renewal of these cells in both Drosophila and the mouse. This review provides a snapshot of current knowledge about Tll and Tlx and their transcriptional network, which maintains NSCs in developing and adult animals.

Indexed as

Transcription, GeneticAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsCentral Nervous SystemDrosophila melanogasterDrosophila ProteinsMiceMice, KnockoutMolecular Sequence DataNeural Stem CellsPhylogenyReceptors, Cytoplasmic and NuclearRepressor ProteinsSequence AlignmentSequence Homology, Amino AcidDrosophila ProteinsNr2e1 protein, mouseReceptors, Cytoplasmic and NuclearRepressor ProteinsTLL protein, Drosophila

Identifiers

PMID21124006
PMCPMC3080779
OpenAlexW2030573242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.