ReviewChemical reviews2015
Chemical methods for decoding cytosine modifications in DNA.
Review in Chemical reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 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
56 citing papers in PubMed.
- A theoretical and experimental framework enables low-coverage sequencing for accurate quantification of genome-wide cytosine modification levels.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- HM-DyadCap - capture and mapping of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine/5-methylcytosine CpG dyads in mammalian DNA.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- The role of cytosine modification symmetry in mammalian epigenome regulation.Chemical science · 2026Review
- SARS-CoV-2 altered mitochondrial DNA methylation in Indian COVID-19 patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Enzymatic, Nondestructive Sequencing of 5-Methylcytosine with Direct Methylation Sequencing (DM-Seq).Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- AnNational science review · 2025Article
- Epigenetics of Hypertensive Nephropathy.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Modeling methyl-sensitive transcription factor motifs with an expanded epigenetic alphabet.Genome biology · 2024Article
- Development of a rapid mass spectrometric method for the analysis of ten-eleven translocation enzymes.Methods in enzymology · 2024Article
- Advantages and challenges associated with bisulfite-assisted nanopore direct RNA sequencing for modifications.RSC chemical biology · 2023Article
- Bisulfite and Nanopore Sequencing for Pseudouridine in RNA.Accounts of chemical research · 2023Article
- Regulating the properties of XQ-2d for targeted delivery of therapeutic agents to pancreatic cancers.National science review · 2023Article
- Epigenetic CpG duplex marks probed by an evolved DNA reader via a well-tempered conformational plasticity.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- A Photoredox Reaction for the Selective Modification of 5-Carboxycytosine in DNA.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2023Article
- Chemical Biology Approaches to Identify and Profile Interactors of Chromatin Modifications.ACS chemical biology · 2023Review
- Epigenetic tumor heterogeneity in the era of single-cell profiling with nanopore sequencing.Clinical epigenetics · 2022Review
- Pseudouridine and N1-Methylpseudouridine Display pH-Independent Reaction Rates with Bisulfite Yielding Ribose Adducts.Organic letters · 2022Article
- Quantifying DNA damage on paper sensorsChemical science · 2022Article
- Evolved DNA Duplex Readers for Strand-Asymmetrically Modified 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine/5-Methylcytosine CpG Dyads.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2022Article
- Collateral Damage Occurs When Using Photosensitizer Probes to Detect or Modulate Nucleic Acid Modifications.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.