Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24952590›Full record

ArticleMolecular systems biology2014

Cell cycle population effects in perturbation studies.

Eoghan O'Duibhir, Philip Lijnzaad, Joris J Benschop, Tineke L Lenstra, Dik van Leenen, Marian J A Groot Koerkamp, Thanasis Margaritis, Mariel O Brok, Patrick Kemmeren, Frank C P Holstege

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular systems biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Transcriptome of the Zebrafish Embryo After Chemical Exposure: A Meta-Analysis.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Paradigm Lost.Cancers · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. eLife · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eoghan O'DuibhirMolecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Philip LijnzaadMolecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Joris J BenschopMolecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Tineke L LenstraMolecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Dik van LeenenMolecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marian J A Groot KoerkampMolecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Thanasis MargaritisMolecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Mariel O BrokMolecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Patrick KemmerenMolecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Frank C P HolstegeMolecular Cancer Research, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands f.c.p.holstege@umcutrecht.nl.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Growth condition perturbation or gene function disruption are commonly used strategies to study cellular systems. Although it is widely appreciated that such experiments may involve indirect effects, these frequently remain uncharacterized. Here, analysis of functionally unrelated Saccharyomyces cerevisiae deletion strains reveals a common gene expression signature. One property shared by these strains is slower growth, with increased presence of the signature in more slowly growing strains. The slow growth signature is highly similar to the environmental stress response (ESR), an expression response common to diverse environmental perturbations. Both environmental and genetic perturbations result in growth rate changes. These are accompanied by a change in the distribution of cells over different cell cycle phases. Rather than representing a direct expression response in single cells, both the slow growth signature and ESR mainly reflect a redistribution of cells over different cell cycle phases, primarily characterized by an increase in the G1 population. The findings have implications for any study of perturbation that is accompanied by growth rate changes. Strategies to counter these effects are presented and discussed.

Indexed as

Gene DeletionCell CycleCulture MediaDatabases, GeneticGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, FungalGenes, FungalSaccharomyces cerevisiaeStress, PhysiologicalCulture Mediaenvironmental stress responsegene deletiongene expressiongenome‐wide transcriptiongrowth rate

Identifiers

PMID24952590
PMCPMC4265054
OpenAlexW2124721555

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.