Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22951232›Full record

ReviewTrends in biochemical sciences2012

A portrait of the GET pathway as a surprisingly complicated young man.

Vladimir Denic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in biochemical sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The big BAM theory: An open and closed case?Biochimica et biophysica acta. Biomembranes · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. The roles of cytosolic quality control proteins, SGTA and the BAG6 complex, in disease.Advances in protein chemistry and structural biology · 2019
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A YidC-like Protein in the Archaeal Plasma Membrane.Structure (London, England : 1993) · 2015
    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.

Vladimir DenicDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Northwest Labs, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. vdenic@mcb.harvard.edu

Funding

Mechanistic analysis of post-translation membrane protein insertion into the ER.R01GM099943 · NIGMS · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI DENIC, VLADIMIR · 2012 to 2016
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM099943NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM0999943-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many eukaryotic membrane proteins have a single C-terminal transmembrane domain that anchors them to a variety of organelles in secretory and endocytic pathways. These tail-anchored (TA) proteins are post-translationally inserted into the endoplasmic reticulum by molecular mechanisms that have long remained mysterious. This review describes how, in just the past 5 years, intense research by a handful of laboratories has led to identification of all the key components of one such mechanism, the guided entry of TA proteins (GET) pathway, which is conserved from yeast to man. The GET pathway is both surprisingly complicated and yet more experimentally tractable than most other membrane insertion mechanisms, and is rapidly revealing new fundamental concepts in membrane protein biogenesis.

Indexed as

Endoplasmic ReticulumHumansMembrane ProteinsProtein Processing, Post-TranslationalMembrane Proteins

Identifiers

PMID22951232
PMCPMC3459580

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.