Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21247752›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in genetics & development2011

Revealing the genetic basis of multiple sclerosis: are we there yet?

Sergio E Baranzini

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in genetics & development, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sergio E BaranziniDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Ave., Room S-256, San Francisco, CA 94143-0435, United States. sebaran@cgl.ucsf.edu
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

A Haplotype Map for Multiple SclerosisR01NS049477 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HAUSER, STEPHEN L · 2005 to 2014
$15.3M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS049477NINDS NIH HHS R01NS049477
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For more than 30 years the only genetic factor associated with susceptibility to multiple sclerosis (MS) was the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) region. Recent advancements in genotyping platforms and the development of more effective statistical methods resulted in the identification of 16 more genes by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in the last three years alone. While the effect of each of these genes is modest compared to that of HLA, this list is expected to grow significantly in the near future, thus defining a complex landscape in which susceptibility may be determined by a combination of allelic variants in different pathways according to ethnic background, disease sub-type, and specific environmental triggers. A considerable overlap of susceptibility genes among multiple autoimmune diseases is becoming evident and integration of these genetic variants with our current knowledge of affected biological pathways will greatly improve our understanding of mechanisms of general autoimmunity and of tissue specificity.

Indexed as

Autoimmune DiseasesAutoimmunityGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome-Wide Association StudyHLA AntigensHumansMultiple SclerosisOrgan SpecificityHLA Antigens

Identifiers

PMID21247752
PMCPMC3105160
OpenAlexW2026775280

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.