Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21924508›Full record

ReviewTrends in biotechnology2012

Imaging proteins inside cells with fluorescent tags.

Georgeta Crivat, Justin W Taraska

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in biotechnology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

122 citing papers in PubMed, 285 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Polyploidy and Senescence of Cancer Cells: Impact of Cell Fusion.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Experimental Approaches to Visualize Effector Protein Translocation During Host-Pathogen Interactions.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

62 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Georgeta CrivatUniversity of Maryland, College Park, Department of Entomology and Program in Cell and Molecular Biology, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Justin W Taraska
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute · USUniversity of Maryland, College Park · US

Funding

Architecture and control of vesicle fusion in excitable cellsZIAHL006098 · NHLBI · NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE · PI TARASKA, JUSTIN · 2011 to 2025
$25.5M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 HL999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Watching biological molecules provides clues to their function and regulation. Some of the most powerful methods of labeling proteins for imaging use genetically encoded fluorescent fusion tags. There are four standard genetic methods of covalently tagging a protein with a fluorescent probe for cellular imaging. These use (i) autofluorescent proteins, (ii) self-labeling enzymes, (iii) enzymes that catalyze the attachment of a probe to a target sequence, and (iv) biarsenical dyes that target tetracysteine motifs. Each of these techniques has advantages and disadvantages. In this review, we cover new developments in these methods and discuss practical considerations for their use in imaging proteins inside living cells.

Indexed as

ProteinsAnimalsEnzymesFluorescenceFluorescent DyesGreen Fluorescent ProteinsHumansLigandsMolecular ImagingStaining and LabelingEnzymesFluorescent DyesGreen Fluorescent ProteinsLigandsProteins

Identifiers

PMID21924508
PMCPMC3246539
OpenAlexW1985283191

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.