ArticleProtoplasma2015
Movement of chromosomes with severed kinetochore microtubules.
Article in Protoplasma, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insights into the roles of sperm in animal cloning.Stem cell research & therapy · 2020Review
- Elastic Tethers Between Separating Anaphase Chromosomes Regulate the Poleward Speeds of the Attached Chromosomes in Crane-Fly Spermatocytes.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Article
- Genetic Material Manipulation and Modification by Optical Trapping and Nanosurgery-A Perspective.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Evidence of Non-microtubule Spindle Forces inFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Article
- Article
- Anaphase Chromosomes in Crane-Fly Spermatocytes Treated With Taxol (Paclitaxel) Accelerate When Their Kinetochore Microtubules Are Cut: Evidence for Spindle Matrix Involvement With Spindle Forces.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2018Article
- Hypothesis-driven research for hypothesis-driven application.Protoplasma · 2015Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Experiments dating from 1966 and thereafter showed that anaphase chromosomes continued to move poleward after their kinetochore microtubules were severed by ultraviolet microbeam irradiation. These observations were initially met with scepticism as they contradicted the prevailing view that kinetochore fibre microtubules pulled chromosomes to the pole. However, recent experiments using visible light laser microbeam irradiations have corroborated these earlier experiments as anaphase chromosomes again were shown to move poleward after their kinetochore microtubules were severed. Thus, multiple independent studies using different techniques have shown that chromosomes can indeed move poleward without direct microtubule connections to the pole, with only a kinetochore 'stub' of microtubules. An issue not yet settled is: what propels the disconnected chromosome? There are two not necessarily mutually exclusive proposals in the literature: (1) chromosome movement is propelled by the kinetochore stub interacting with non-kinetochore microtubules and (2) chromosome movement is propelled by a spindle matrix acting on the stub. In this review, we summarise the data indicating that chromosomes can move with severed kinetochore microtubules and we discuss proposed mechanisms for chromosome movement with severed kinetochore microtubules.
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.