Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25606981›Full record

ReviewCurrent protocols in nucleic acid chemistry2014

In vitro selection using modified or unnatural nucleotides.

Gwendolyn M Stovall, Robert S Bedenbaugh, Shruti Singh, Adam J Meyer, Paul J Hatala, Andrew D Ellington, Bradley Hall

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current protocols in nucleic acid chemistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Inside the Black Box: What Makes SELEX Better?Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Key Aspects of Nucleic Acid Library Design for in Vitro Selection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gwendolyn M StovallThe University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; Altermune Technologies LLC, Austin, Texas.
Robert S Bedenbaugh
Shruti Singh
Adam J Meyer
Paul J Hatala
Andrew D Ellington
Bradley Hall
The University of Texas at Austin · USAutoimmune Technologies (United States) · US

Funding

Novel Tools for Detecting FGF8 for Developmental Biology ResearchR03HD068691 · NICHD · GEISINGER CLINIC · PI MOON, ANNE M · 2011 to 2012
$161k
NICHD NIH HHS 5R03HD068691NICHD NIH HHS R03 HD068691
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Incorporation of modified nucleotides into in vitro RNA or DNA selections offers many potential advantages, such as the increased stability of selected nucleic acids against nuclease degradation, improved affinities, expanded chemical functionality, and increased library diversity. This unit provides useful information and protocols for in vitro selection using modified nucleotides. It includes a discussion of when to use modified nucleotides; protocols for evaluating and optimizing transcription reactions, as well as confirming the incorporation of the modified nucleotides; protocols for evaluating modified nucleotide transcripts as template in reverse transcription reactions; protocols for the evaluation of the fidelity of modified nucleotides in the replication and the regeneration of the pool; and a protocol to compare modified nucleotide pools and selection conditions.

Indexed as

DNANucleotidesRNADNANucleotidesRNAaptamerdeoxyribozymesin vitro selectionmodified nucleotidesribozymesunnatural nucleotides

Identifiers

PMID25606981
PMCPMC4068349
OpenAlexW1912230311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.