ReviewChromosoma2011
Assembly of the transcription machinery: ordered and stable, random and dynamic, or both?
Review in Chromosoma, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Supramolecular Assembly of Supercharged Proteins.ACS central science · 2022Article
- Power-law behavior of transcription factor dynamics at the single-molecule level implies a continuum affinity model.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- The nuclear receptor superfamily: A structural perspective.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2018Review
- Chromatin reprogramming in breast cancer.Endocrine-related cancer · 2018Review
- Quantifying transcription factor binding dynamics at the single-molecule level in live cells.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2017Article
- Pioneer factors and ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling factors interact dynamically: A new perspective: Multiple transcription factors can effect chromatin pioneer functions through dynamic interactions with ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling factors.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2016Review
- Visualizing posttranslational and epigenetic modifications of endogenous proteins in vivo.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2015Review
- Exosome proteomics reveals transcriptional regulator proteins with potential to mediate downstream pathways.Cancer science · 2014Review
- Single-molecule analysis of transcription factor binding at transcription sites in live cells.Nature communications · 2014Article
- Reconciling the concurrent fast and slow cycling of proteins on gene promoters.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2014Article
- Dynamics of the ternary complex formed by c-Myc interactor JPO2, transcriptional co-activator LEDGF/p75, and chromatin.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2014Article
- Dynamic regulation of transcriptional states by chromatin and transcription factors.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2014Review
- Article
- Independent RNA polymerase II preinitiation complex dynamics and nucleosome turnover at promoter sites in vivo.Genome research · 2014Article
- Robustness of DNA repair through collective rate control.PLoS computational biology · 2014Article
- Protein complex formation: computational clarification of the sequential versus probabilistic recruitment puzzle.PloS one · 2013Article
- Cellular response to heat shock studied by multiconfocal fluorescence correlation spectroscopy.Biophysical journal · 2012Article
- Transcription goes digital.EMBO reports · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The assembly of the transcription machinery is a key step in gene activation, but even basic details of this process remain unclear. Here we discuss the apparent discrepancy between the classic sequential assembly model based mostly on biochemistry and an emerging dynamic assembly model based mostly on fluorescence microscopy. The former model favors a stable transcription complex with subunits that cooperatively assemble in order, whereas the latter model favors an unstable complex with subunits that may assemble more randomly. To confront this apparent discrepancy, we review the merits and drawbacks of the different experimental approaches and list potential biasing factors that could be responsible for the different interpretations of assembly. We then discuss how these biases might be overcome in the future with improved experiments or new techniques. Finally, we discuss how kinetic models for assembly may help resolve the ordered and stable vs. random and dynamic assembly debate.
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.