Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22773680›Full record

ReviewJournal of leukocyte biology2012

Plenary perspective: the complexity of constitutive and inducible gene expression in mononuclear phagocytes.

David A Hume

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of leukocyte biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. A simplified method for separating renal MPCs using SLAMF9.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pharmacological plasticity-How do you hit a moving target?Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2019
    Review
  8. A novel myeloid cell in murine spleen defined through gene profiling.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

David A HumeThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. David.Hume@roslin.ed.ac.uk
Roslin Institute · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/G022607/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20251969
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monocytes and macrophages differentiate from progenitor cells under the influence of colony-stimulating factors. Genome-scale data have enabled the identification of the set of genes that distinguishes macrophages from other cell types and the ways in which thousands of genes are regulated in response to pathogen challenge. Although there has been a focus on a small subset of lineage-enriched transcription factors, such as PU.1, more than one-half of the transcription factors in the genome can be expressed in macrophage lineage cells under some state of activation, and they interact in a complex network. The network architecture is conserved across species, but many of the target genes evolve rapidly and differ between mouse and human. The data and publication deluge related to macrophage biology require the development of new analytical tools and ways of presenting information in an accessible form.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntigen PresentationCell DifferentiationGene ExpressionHumansLeukocytes, MononuclearMacrophage ActivationMacrophagesPhagocytes

Identifiers

PMID22773680
PMCPMC3427611
OpenAlexW2169763168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.