Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21875986›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology2011

Models for Golgi traffic: a critical assessment.

Benjamin S Glick, Alberto Luini

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 133 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing 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

133 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A class of COPI cargo receptors regulates processing of transmembrane proteins by reinforcing their Golgi retention.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. tsCRISPR based identification of Rab proteins required for the recycling ofFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024
    Article

73 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

2 authors.

Benjamin S GlickDepartment of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA. bsglick@uchicago.edu
Alberto Luini

Funding

THE TRANSITIONAL ER-GOLGI SYSTEM IN BUDDING YEASTSR01GM061156 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI GLICK, BENJAMIN S · 2000 to 2012
$3.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM-61156NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM061156Telethon TGM06F02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A variety of secretory cargoes move through the Golgi, but the pathways and mechanisms of this traffic are still being debated. Here, we evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of five current models for Golgi traffic: (1) anterograde vesicular transport between stable compartments, (2) cisternal progression/maturation, (3) cisternal progression/maturation with heterotypic tubular transport, (4) rapid partitioning in a mixed Golgi, and (5) stable compartments as cisternal progenitors. Each model is assessed for its ability to explain a set of key observations encompassing multiple cell types. No single model can easily explain all of the observations from diverse organisms. However, we propose that cisternal progression/maturation is the best candidate for a conserved core mechanism of Golgi traffic, and that some cells elaborate this core mechanism by means of heterotypic tubular transport between cisternae.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalBiological TransportCOP-Coated VesiclesGolgi Apparatus

Identifiers

PMID21875986
PMCPMC3220355

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.