Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21813401›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology2011

Golgi and related vesicle proteomics: simplify to identify.

Joan Gannon, John J M Bergeron, Tommy Nilsson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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.

Joan GannonThe Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre and the Department of Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
John J M Bergeron
Tommy Nilsson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite more than six decades of successful Golgi research, the fundamental question as to how biosynthetic material is transported through the secretory pathway remains unanswered. New technologies such as live cell imaging and correlative microscopy have highlighted the plastic nature of the Golgi, one that is sensitive to perturbation yet highly efficient in regaining both structure and function. Single molecule-microscopy and super resolution-microscopy further adds to this picture. Various models for protein transport have been put forward, each with its own merits and pitfalls but we are far from resolving whether one is more correct than the other. As such, our laboratory considers multiple mechanisms of Golgi transport until proven otherwise. This includes the two classical modes of transport, vesicular transport and cisternal progression/maturation as well as more recent models such as tubular inter- and intra-cisternal connections (long lasting or transient) and inter-Golgi stack transport. In this article, we focus on an emerging inductive technology, mass spectrometry-based proteomics that has already enabled insight into the relative composition of compartments and subcompartments of the secretory pathway including mechanistic aspects of protein transport. We note that proteomics, as with any other technology, is not a stand-alone technology but one that works best alongside complementary approaches.

Indexed as

Biological TransportCOP-Coated VesiclesGolgi ApparatusProteomicsVesicular Transport ProteinsVesicular Transport Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21813401
PMCPMC3225945

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.