Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21311596›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model organism: a comparative study.

Hiren Karathia, Ester Vilaprinyo, Albert Sorribas, Rui Alves

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 179 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Set202 is a histone lysine methyltransferase that enablesbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. "Let's Dry up and Survive Together": Is Anhydrobiosis in TwoInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Transcriptomic Analysis of Copper Resistance inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Antifungal Susceptibility ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  17. Comb spectroscopy of COBiomedical optics express · 2024
    Article
  18. Proof-of-principle study usingJournal of biosciences · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hiren KarathiaDepartament Ciències Mèdiques Bàsiques, Universitat de Lleida & IRBLleida, Lleida, Spain.
Ester Vilaprinyo
Albert Sorribas
Rui Alves
Universitat de Lleida · ESBiomedical Research Institute of Lleida · ESHospital Del Mar · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModel organisms are used for research because they provide a framework on which to develop and optimize methods that facilitate and standardize analysis. Such organisms should be representative of the living beings for which they are to serve as proxy. However, in practice, a model organism is often selected ad hoc, and without considering its representativeness, because a systematic and rational method to include this consideration in the selection process is still lacking. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsIn this work we propose such a method and apply it in a pilot study of strengths and limitations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model organism. The method relies on the functional classification of proteins into different biological pathways and processes and on full proteome comparisons between the putative model organism and other organisms for which we would like to extrapolate results. Here we compare S. cerevisiae to 704 other organisms from various phyla. For each organism, our results identify the pathways and processes for which S. cerevisiae is predicted to be a good model to extrapolate from. We find that animals in general and Homo sapiens in particular are some of the non-fungal organisms for which S. cerevisiae is likely to be a good model in which to study a significant fraction of common biological processes. We validate our approach by correctly predicting which organisms are phenotypically more distant from S. cerevisiae with respect to several different biological processes. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The method we propose could be used to choose appropriate substitute model organisms for the study of biological processes in other species that are harder to study. For example, one could identify appropriate models to study either pathologies in humans or specific biological processes in species with a long development time, such as plants.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalSaccharomyces cerevisiaeAnimalsArchaeaBacteriaComputational BiologyEukaryotaEvolution, MolecularForecastingMetabolic Networks and PathwaysPhylogenyPilot ProjectsResearch DesignSignal TransductionValidation Studies as Topic

Identifiers

PMID21311596
PMCPMC3032731
OpenAlexW1996935079

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.