Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24968021›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Comparison of the transmembrane mucins MUC1 and MUC16 in epithelial barrier function.

Ilene K Gipson, Sandra Spurr-Michaud, Ann Tisdale, Balaraj B Menon

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Sequencing Analysis ofCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Transmembrane Mucin 1 Blocks Fluorescein Ingress to Corneal Epithelium.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Mucus and Mucins: The Underappreciated Host Defence System.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Review
  20. Review

12 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ilene K GipsonSchepens Eye Research Institute of Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Sandra Spurr-MichaudSchepens Eye Research Institute of Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Ann TisdaleSchepens Eye Research Institute of Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Balaraj B MenonSchepens Eye Research Institute of Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Harvard University · USMassachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary · US

Funding

MUCINS OF THE OCULAR SURFACER01EY003306 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GIPSON, ILENE K. · 1985 to 2015
$8.9M
Bacteria-Mucin Interactions at the Ocular SurfaceR01EY018850 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GIPSON, ILENE K. · 2009 to 2012
$1.9M
CELL MOTILITY AND ADHESION IN CORNEAL WOUND HEALINGR37EY003306 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GIPSON, ILENE K. · 1990 to 1999
–
NEI NIH HHS EY018850NEI NIH HHS EY03306NEI NIH HHS R01 EY003306NEI NIH HHS R01 EY018850NEI NIH HHS R37 EY003306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Membrane-anchored mucins are present in the apical surface glycocalyx of mucosal epithelial cells, each mucosal epithelium having at least two of the mucins. The mucins have been ascribed barrier functions, but direct comparisons of their functions within the same epithelium have not been done. In an epithelial cell line that expresses the membrane-anchored mucins, MUC1 and MUC16, the mucins were independently and stably knocked down using shRNA. Barrier functions tested included dye penetrance, bacterial adherence and invasion, transepithelial resistance, tight junction formation, and apical surface size. Knockdown of MUC16 decreased all barrier functions tested, causing increased dye penetrance and bacterial invasion, decreased transepithelial resistance, surprisingly, disruption of tight junctions, and greater apical surface cell area. Knockdown of MUC1 did not decrease barrier function, in fact, barrier to dye penetrance and bacterial invasion increased significantly. These data suggest that barrier functions of membrane-anchored mucins vary in the context of other membrane mucins, and MUC16 provides a major barrier when present.

Indexed as

Bacterial AdhesionCA-125 AntigenCell MembraneColoring AgentsElectric ImpedanceEpithelial CellsGene Knockdown TechniquesHumansMembrane ProteinsMucin-1Mucous MembraneTight JunctionsCA-125 AntigenColoring AgentsMembrane ProteinsMUC16 protein, humanMucin-1

Identifiers

PMID24968021
PMCPMC4072602
OpenAlexW2133599168

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.