ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2014
Should pharmacologists care about alternative splicing? IUPHAR Review 4.
Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tissue damage-induced axon injury-associated responses in sensory neurons: requirements, prevention, and potential role in persistent post-surgical pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide signalling as a therapeutic target in migraine.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2024Review
- Pleiotropic pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP): Novel insights into the role of PACAP in eating and drug intake.Brain research · 2020Review
- Proteins and Proteoforms: New Separation Challenges.Analytical chemistry · 2018Review
- Clinical Relevance of Serotonin Receptor Splice Variant Distribution in Human Colon.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2015Article
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
Alternative splicing of mRNAs occurs in the majority of human genes, and most differential splicing results in different protein isoforms with possibly different functional properties. However, there are many reported splicing variations that may be quite rare, and not all combinatorially possible variants of a given gene are expressed at significant levels. Genes of interest to pharmacologists are frequently expressed at such low levels that they are not adequately represented in genome-wide studies of transcription. In single-gene studies, data are commonly available on the relative abundance and functional significance of individual alternatively spliced exons, but there are rarely data that quantitate the relative abundance of full-length transcripts and define which combinations of exons are significant. A number of criteria for judging the significance of splice variants and suggestions for their nomenclature are discussed.
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.