Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23864388›Full record

ReviewBioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology2013

Are human endogenous retroviruses pathogenic? An approach to testing the hypothesis.

George R Young, Jonathan P Stoye, George Kassiotis

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Defective HIV-1 proviruses produce viral proteins.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

George R YoungDivision of Virology, MRC National Institute for Medical Research, London, UK.
Jonathan P Stoye
George Kassiotis

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U117512710Medical Research Council MC_U117581330Medical Research Council U117512710Medical Research Council U117581330
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of observations have led researchers to postulate that, despite being replication-defective, human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) may have retained the potential to cause or contribute to disease. However, mechanisms of HERV pathogenicity might differ substantially from those of modern infectious retroviruses or of the infectious precursors of HERVs. Therefore, novel pathways of HERV involvement in disease pathogenesis should be investigated. Recent technological advances in sequencing and bioinformatics are making this task increasingly feasible. The accumulating knowledge of HERV biology may also facilitate the definition and general acceptance of criteria that establish HERV pathogenicity. Here, we explore possible mechanisms whereby HERVs may cause disease and examine the evidence that either has been or should be obtained in order to decisively address the pathogenic potential of HERVs.

Indexed as

Adaptive ImmunityComputational BiologyEndogenous RetrovirusesGenome, ViralGenomicsHumansImmunity, InnateRecombinant ProteinsRNA, ViralViral ProteinsVirus DiseasesVirus ReplicationRecombinant ProteinsRNA, ViralViral Proteinsautoimmunitycancerendogenous retrovirusintegrationsmutagenesispathogenesis

Identifiers

PMID23864388
PMCPMC4352332
OpenAlexW1487659547

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.