Erratum: "Electro-entropic excluded volume effects on DNA looping and relaxation in nanochannels" [Biomicrofluidics 7, 054119 (2013)].

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Limitations of the equivalent neutral polymer assumption for theories describing nanochannel-confined DNA.Physical review. E · 2020
   Article
2. Finite-size corrections for confined polymers in the extended de Gennes regime.Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics · 2015
   Article
3. Evaluation of the Kirkwood approximation for the diffusivity of channel-confined DNA chains in the de Gennes regime.Biomicrofluidics · 2015
   Article
4. Hydrodynamics of DNA confined in nanoslits and nanochannels.The European physical journal. Special topics · 2014
   Article
5. Conformation-dependent translocation of a star polymer through a nanochannel.Biomicrofluidics · 2014
   Article
6. Modeling the relaxation time of DNA confined in a nanochannel.Biomicrofluidics · 2013
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Electro-entropic excluded volume effects on DNA looping and relaxation in nanochannels.2013

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract