Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24592259›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2014

Inclusion bodies: not that bad….

Ana Ramón, Mario Señorale-Pose, Mónica Marín

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Plasmids for Controlled and Tunable High-Level Expression in E. coli.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Solubilization and Refolding of Inclusion Body Proteins.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ana RamónSección Bioquímica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Montevideo, Uruguay.
Mario Señorale-PoseSección Bioquímica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Montevideo, Uruguay.
Mónica MarínSección Bioquímica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Montevideo, Uruguay.
Universidad de la República de Uruguay · UY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The formation of inclusion bodies (IBs) constitute a frequent event during the production of heterologous proteins in bacterial hosts. Although the mechanisms leading to their formation are not completely understood, empirical data have been exploited trying to predict the aggregation propensity of specific proteins while a great number of strategies have been developed to avoid the generation of IBs. However, in many cases, the formation of such aggregates can be considered an advantage for basic research as for protein production. In this review, we focus on this positive side of IBs formation in bacteria. We present a compilation on recent advances on the understanding of IBs formation and their utilization as a model to understand protein aggregation and to explore strategies to control this process. We include recent information about their composition and structure, their use as an attractive approach to produce low cost proteins and other promising applications in Biomedicine.

Indexed as

bacterial inclusion bodiesconformational disease modeldrug delivery systemsnanoparticulesprotein aggregationprotein foldingrecombinant protein expression

Identifiers

PMID24592259
PMCPMC3924032
OpenAlexW2010167085

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.