Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26199940›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2015

Single-Stranded DNA Aptamers against Pathogens and Toxins: Identification and Biosensing Applications.

Ka Lok Hong, Letha J Sooter

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Advances in Aptamer Drug Delivery Systems for Treatment of Glioblastoma.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Therapeutic Potential of Aptamer-Protein Interactions.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Aptamers for Viral Detection and Inhibition.ACS infectious diseases · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Ka Lok HongDepartment of Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1 Medical Center Drive, P.O. Box 9530, Morgantown, WV 20506, USA.
Letha J SooterDepartment of Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1 Medical Center Drive, P.O. Box 9530, Morgantown, WV 20506, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular recognition elements (MREs) can be short sequences of single-stranded DNA, RNA, small peptides, or antibody fragments. They can bind to user-defined targets with high affinity and specificity. There has been an increasing interest in the identification and application of nucleic acid molecular recognition elements, commonly known as aptamers, since they were first described in 1990 by the Gold and Szostak laboratories. A large number of target specific nucleic acids MREs and their applications are currently in the literature. This review first describes the general methodologies used in identifying single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) aptamers. It then summarizes advancements in the identification and biosensing application of ssDNA aptamers specific for bacteria, viruses, their associated molecules, and selected chemical toxins. Lastly, an overview of the basic principles of ssDNA aptamer-based biosensors is discussed.

Indexed as

Aptamers, NucleotideBacteriaBiosensing TechniquesDNA, Single-StrandedSELEX Aptamer TechniqueToxins, BiologicalAptamers, NucleotideDNA, Single-StrandedToxins, Biological

Identifiers

PMID26199940
PMCPMC4493287
OpenAlexW1547461370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.