ArticlePloS one2011
Evaluation of pulsed-FRAP and conventional-FRAP for determination of protein mobility in prokaryotic cells.
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 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Macromolecular crowding links ribosomal protein gene dosage to growth rate in Vibrio cholerae.BMC biology · 2020Article
- Design and Properties of Genetically Encoded Probes for Sensing Macromolecular Crowding.Biophysical journal · 2017Article
- Physicochemical properties of cells and their effects on intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs).Chemical reviews · 2014Review
- In vivo biochemistry in bacterial cells using FRAP: insight into the translation cycle.Biophysical journal · 2012Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMacromolecule mobility is often quantified with Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP). Throughout literature a wide range of diffusion coefficients for GFP in the cytoplasm of Escherichia coli (3 to 14 µm²/s) is reported using FRAP-based approaches. In this study, we have evaluated two of these methods: pulsed-FRAP and "conventional"-FRAP. PRINCIPAL
findingsTo address the question whether the apparent discrepancy in the diffusion data stems from methodological differences or biological variation, we have implemented and compared the two techniques on bacteria grown and handled in the same way. The GFP diffusion coefficients obtained under normal osmotic conditions and upon osmotic upshift were very similar for the different techniques.
conclusionsOur analyses indicate that the wide range of values reported for the diffusion coefficient of GFP in live cells are due to experimental conditions and/or biological variation rather than methodological differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.