Did a classic preconditioning study provide a clue to the identity of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. miR-181c Activates Mitochondrial Calcium Uptake by Regulating MICU1 in the Heart.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019
   Article
2. The role of succinate and ROS in reperfusion injury - A critical appraisal.Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology · 2017
   Review
3. Real-Time Fluorescence Measurements of ROS and [Ca2+] in Ischemic / Reperfused Rat Hearts: Detectable Increases Occur only after Mitochondrial Pore Opening and Are Attenuated by Ischemic Preconditioning.PloS one · 2016
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as