Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25096198›Full record

ReviewProtein engineering, design & selection : PEDS2014

Nature's recipe for splitting inteins.

A Sesilja Aranko, Alexander Wlodawer, Hideo Iwaï

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

62 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Int&in: A machine learning-based web server for active split site identification in inteins.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Frontiers in genome editing · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. An artificially split class 3 intein.microPublication biology · 2023
    Article

2 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

3 authors.

A Sesilja ArankoResearch Program in Structural Biology and Biophysics, Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, Helsinki FIN-00014, Finland.
Alexander WlodawerMacromolecular Crystallography Laboratory, National Cancer Institute-Frederick, MD 21702, USA.
Hideo IwaïResearch Program in Structural Biology and Biophysics, Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, Helsinki FIN-00014, Finland hideo.iwai@helsinki.fi.

Funding

Protein StructureZIABC010348 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WLODAWER, ALEXANDER · 2009 to 2025
$27.5M
Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein splicing in trans by split inteins has increasingly become a powerful protein-engineering tool for protein ligation, both in vivo and in vitro. Over 100 naturally occurring and artificially engineered split inteins have been reported for protein ligation using protein trans-splicing. Here, we review the current status of the reported split inteins in order to delineate an empirical or rational strategy for constructing new split inteins suitable for various applications in biotechnology and chemical biology.

Indexed as

InteinsProtein SplicingAnimalsHumansModels, MolecularTrans-Splicingprotein ligationprotein splicingprotein trans-splicingsplit intein

Identifiers

PMID25096198
PMCPMC4133565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.