Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22183359›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2012

Retinal degeneration in the fly.

Nansi Jo Colley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. AInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

1 author.

Nansi Jo ColleyDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Department of Genetics, and UW-Eye Research Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53792, USA. njcolley@wisc.edu

Funding

UW Vision Research Core - Administrative CoreP30EY016665 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ROBERT W NICKELLS · 2005 to 2026
$12.6M
MOLECULAR STUDIES OF RETINAL DEGENERATION IN DROSOPHILAR01EY008768 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI COLLEY, NANSI J. · 1995 to 2016
$5.3M
Novel Locus Required For Photoreceptor SurvivalR03EY014378 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI COLLEY, NANSI J. · 2004 to 2006
$433k
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY016665NEI NIH HHS R01 EY008768NEI NIH HHS R01 EY08768NEI NIH HHS R03 EY014378
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many genes are functionally equivalent between flies and humans. In addition, the same, or similar, mutations cause disease in both species. In fact, nearly three-fourths of all human disease genes have related sequences in Drosophila. The fly has a relatively small genome, made up of about 13,600 genes in four pairs of chromosomes. However, despite the dramatic differences in size and apparent complexity between humans and flies--we have less than twice as many genes as a fly--our genome is estimated to be made up of only 20,000-25,000 genes contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes. Therefore, despite the fly's perceived simplicity, or our perceived complexity, our genetic makeup may not be all that different. Its versatility for genetic manipulation and convenience for unraveling fundamental biological processes continue to guarantee the fly a place in the spotlight for unraveling the basis of and therapeutic treatments for human eye diseases.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalDrosophila melanogasterRetinal DegenerationAnimalsHumansProtein TransportVision, Ocular

Identifiers

PMID22183359
PMCPMC3441143

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.