Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22761562›Full record

ReviewPLoS computational biology2012

Bringing molecules back into molecular evolution.

Claus O Wilke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS computational biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Early divergence of translation initiation and elongation factors.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Methodologies for Microbial Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Protein Evolution in the Flaviviruses.Journal of molecular evolution · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

1 author.

Claus O WilkeInstitute of Cell and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America. wilke@austin.utexas.edu

Funding

The biophysical basis of translational selectionR01GM088344 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI BARRICK, JEFFREY EVAN, WILKE, CLAUS O · 2009 to 2023
$3.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM088344
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much molecular-evolution research is concerned with sequence analysis. Yet these sequences represent real, three-dimensional molecules with complex structure and function. Here I highlight a growing trend in the field to incorporate molecular structure and function into computational molecular-evolution work. I consider three focus areas: reconstruction and analysis of past evolutionary events, such as phylogenetic inference or methods to infer selection pressures; development of toy models and simulations to identify fundamental principles of molecular evolution; and atom-level, highly realistic computational modeling of molecular structure and function aimed at making predictions about possible future evolutionary events.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularBiophysical PhenomenaComputational BiologyComputer SimulationModels, GeneticModels, MolecularProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID22761562
PMCPMC3386153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.