Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22244612›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in cell biology2012

3D ultrastructure of the nuclear pore complex.

Silvija Bilokapic, Thomas U Schwartz

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in cell biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Modeling of the mechano-chemical behaviour of the nuclear pore complex: current research and perspectives.Integrative biology : quantitative biosciences from nano to macro · 2016
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The nuclear envelope: an intriguing focal point for neurogenetic disease.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2014
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Silvija BilokapicDepartment of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Thomas U Schwartz
Massachusetts Institute of Technology · US

Funding

High Resolution Assembly Structure of The Nuclear Pore ComplexR01GM077537 · NIGMS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI SCHWARTZ, THOMAS · 2007 to 2019
$4.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM077537NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM077537
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nuclear pore complexes (NPCs) perforate the double-layered nuclear envelope and form the main gateway for molecular exchange between nucleus and cytoplasm of the eukaryotic cell. Because NPCs are extraordinarily complex and large, thus challenging to investigate on a molecular level, they are still rather poorly understood, despite their pivotal role in cellular homeostasis. To decipher the NPC structure at high resolution, the prerequisite to fully understand its function, a tailored approach is necessary that feeds from complimentary data, obtained at largely different spatial resolutions. The problem is further complicated by the dynamic nature of the NPC, manifested in flexible regions and dynamic components. Here we summarize the current state of these structural efforts, describe the breakthroughs of recent years, point out the existing disputes in the field, and give an outlook of what we should expect to happen in the near future.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell NucleusEukaryotic CellsHumansNuclear EnvelopeNuclear Pore

Identifiers

PMID22244612
PMCPMC3398480
OpenAlexW1999982273

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.