Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25912526›Full record

ReviewArchives of biochemistry and biophysics2015

Three-dimensional reconstruction of helical polymers.

Edward H Egelman

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of biochemistry and biophysics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Helical reconstruction, again.Current opinion in structural biology · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Ambidextrous helical nanotubes from self-assembly of designed helical hairpin motifs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. EMDataBank unified data resource for 3DEM.Nucleic acids research · 2016
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edward H EgelmanDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Virginia, Box 800733, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA. Electronic address: egelman@virginia.edu.
University of Virginia · US

Funding

Methods for the Analysis of Helical Macromolecular ComplexesR01EB001567 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI EGELMAN, EDWARD H. · 2003 to 2014
$3.6M
Medical Research Council EB001567NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB001567
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of three-dimensional electron microscopy began more than 45years ago with a reconstruction of a helical phage tail, and helical polymers continue to be important objects for three-dimensional reconstruction due to the centrality of helical protein and nucleoprotein polymers in all aspects of biology. We are now witnessing a fundamental revolution in this area, made possible by direct electron detectors, which has led to near-atomic resolution for a number of important helical structures. Most importantly, the possibility of achieving such resolution routinely for a vast number of helical samples is within our reach. One of the main problems in helical reconstruction, ambiguities in assigning the helical symmetry, is overcome when one reaches a resolution where secondary structure is clearly visible. However, obstacles still exist due to the intrinsic variability within many helical filaments.

Indexed as

BacteriophagesMicroscopy, ElectronMolecular StructurePolymersPolymersDirect electron detectorsHelical polymersVariable twist

Identifiers

PMID25912526
PMCPMC4543434
OpenAlexW2088418534

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.