Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26139131›Full record

ArticleCell stress & chaperones2015

Imaging stress.

Shlomi Brielle, Rotem Gura, Daniel Kaganovich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell stress & chaperones, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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.

Shlomi BrielleDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91904, Israel.
Rotem GuraDepartment of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Daniel KaganovichDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91904, Israel. dan@cc.huji.ac.il.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent innovations in cell biology and imaging approaches are changing the way we study cellular stress, protein misfolding, and aggregation. Studies have begun to show that stress responses are even more variegated and dynamic than previously thought, encompassing nano-scale reorganization of cytosolic machinery that occurs almost instantaneously, much faster than transcriptional responses. Moreover, protein and mRNA quality control is often organized into highly dynamic macromolecular assemblies, or dynamic droplets, which could easily be mistaken for dysfunctional "aggregates," but which are, in fact, regulated functional compartments. The nano-scale architecture of stress-response ranges from diffraction-limited structures like stress granules, P-bodies, and stress foci to slightly larger quality control inclusions like juxta nuclear quality control compartment (JUNQ) and insoluble protein deposit compartment (IPOD), as well as others. Examining the biochemical and physical properties of these dynamic structures necessitates live cell imaging at high spatial and temporal resolution, and techniques to make quantitative measurements with respect to movement, localization, and mobility. Hence, it is important to note some of the most recent observations, while casting an eye towards new imaging approaches that offer the possibility of collecting entirely new kinds of data from living cells.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingInclusion BodiesProtein FoldingSaccharomyces cerevisiaeStress, PhysiologicalAggregationChaperoneDynamic dropletsFLIPFRAPInclusionIPODJUNQMisfolded proteinP-bodiesPhoCStress fociStress granules

Identifiers

PMID26139131
PMCPMC4595435

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.