ArticleFrontiers in oncology2012
Discovering non-random segregation of sister chromatids: the naïve treatment of a premature discovery.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Segregation Lag in Polyploid Cells of the Pathogen GenusThe Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2017Article
- Asymmetric cell division and template DNA co-segregation in cancer stem cells.Frontiers in oncology · 2014Review
- Higher 5-hydroxymethylcytosine identifies immortal DNA strand chromosomes in asymmetrically self-renewing distributed stem cells.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013Article
- Nonrandom template segregation: a way to break the symmetry of stem cells.The Journal of cell biology · 2013Article
- The chromosome cycle of prokaryotes.Molecular microbiology · 2013Review
- Unbiased about chromosome segregation: give me a mechanism and I will make you "immortal".Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2013Article
- Unbiased segregation of yeast chromatids in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2013Review
- Implication of the Strand-Specific Imprinting and Segregation Model: IntegratingHereditary genetics : current research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The discovery of non-random chromosome segregation (Figure 1) is discussed from the perspective of what was known in 1965 and 1966. The distinction between daughter, parent, or grandparent strands of DNA was developed in a bacterial system and led to the discovery that multiple copies of DNA elements of bacteria are not distributed randomly with respect to the age of the template strand. Experiments with higher eukaryotic cells demonstrated that during mitosis Mendel's laws were violated; and the initial serendipitous choice of eukaryotic cell system led to the striking example of non-random segregation of parent and grandparent DNA template strands in primary cultures of cells derived from mouse embryos. Attempts to extrapolate these findings to established tissue culture lines demonstrated that the property could be lost. Experiments using plant root tips demonstrated that the phenomenon exists in plants and that it was, at some level, under genetic control. Despite publication in major journals and symposia (Lark et al., 1966, 1967; Lark, 1967, 1969a,b,c) the potential implications of these findings were ignored for several decades. Here we explore possible reasons for the pre-maturity (Stent, 1972) of this discovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.