Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25107299›Full record

ReviewNeurochemical research2015

The chaperone Grp78 in protein folding disorders of the nervous system.

Julie A Moreno, Evelyn Tiffany-Castiglioni

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neurochemical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. TheToxins · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Naringenin AmelioratesFrontiers in neuroscience · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Endoplasmic reticulum pathology and stress response in neurons precede programmed necrosis after neonatal hypoxia-ischemia.International journal of developmental neuroscience : the official journal of the International Society for Developmental Neuroscience · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julie A MorenoDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Prion Research Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1619, USA.
Evelyn Tiffany-Castiglioni
Colorado State University · USMitchell Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chaperones are essential for the proper folding of proteins, and their dysfunction or depletion may be a key factor in protein folding disorders in the central nervous system. In normal conditions the cell regulates the proper folding of proteins by endoplasmic reticulum chaperones, called heat shock proteins, the cellular machinery that correctly folds newly synthesized and partially folded proteins or initiates degradation of misfolded proteins. Maintaining protein homeostasis within the cell is vital for the cells to function and survive. However, under conditions of cellular stress, proteastatic mechanisms must be activated to recycle, refold, or initiate degradation of misfolded or unfolded proteins. In this commentary, we will discuss the importance of chaperones, more specifically the 78 kd glucose regulated protein Grp78 (also known as BiP and HSP5a), in Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and prion diseases, and the role that metals may play in exacerbating neurodegenerative diseases.

Indexed as

AnimalsEndoplasmic Reticulum Chaperone BiPHeat-Shock ProteinsHumansNeurodegenerative DiseasesProteostasis DeficienciesEndoplasmic Reticulum Chaperone BiPHeat-Shock ProteinsHSPA5 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID25107299
OpenAlexW2050573290

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.