Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21476986›Full record

ReviewCell biology international2011

Out with the old, in with the new? Comparing methods for measuring protein degradation.

Jonathan W Yewdell, Joshua R Lacsina, Martin C Rechsteiner, Christopher V Nicchitta

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cell biology international, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Dual gain and loss of cullin 3 function mediates familial hyperkalemic hypertension.American journal of physiology. Renal physiology · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan W YewdellCell Biology Section, Laboratory of Viral Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, U.S.A. jyewdell@nih.gov
Joshua R Lacsina
Martin C Rechsteiner
Christopher V Nicchitta
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases · US

Funding

Proteasomes, PODs and Polyglutamine DiseasesR01NS042892 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI RECHSTEINER, MARTIN C · 2004 to 2008
$1.7M
Regulation of mRNA Partitioning to the Endoplasmic ReticulumR01GM077382 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI NICCHITTA, CHRISTOPHER V. · 2007 to 2010
$1.5M
Intramural NIH HHSNIGMS NIH HHS GM077382NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM077382NINDS NIH HHS NS042892
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein degradation is a critical factor in controlling cellular protein abundance. Here, we compare classical methods for determining protein degradation rates to a novel GFP (green fluorescent protein) fusion protein based method that assesses the intrinsic stability of cloned cDNA library products by flow cytometry [Yen et al. (2008) Science 322, 918]. While no method is perfect, we conclude that chimeric gene reporter approaches, though powerful, should be applied cautiously, due principally to GFP (or other reporter tag) interference with protein organelle targeting or incorporation into macromolecular assemblies, both of which cause spuriously high degradation rates.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiochemistryCloning, MolecularFlow CytometryGreen Fluorescent ProteinsHumansProteinsRecombinant Fusion ProteinsGreen Fluorescent ProteinsProteinsRecombinant Fusion Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21476986
PMCPMC3727619
OpenAlexW2095999275

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.