Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26256477›Full record

ReviewChemistry & biology2015

Chemical Lectinology: Tools for Probing the Ligands and Dynamics of Mammalian Lectins In Vivo.

Brian Belardi, Carolyn R Bertozzi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemistry & biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genetic glycoengineering in mammalian cells.The Journal of biological chemistry
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brian BelardiDepartments of Chemistry and Molecular and Cell Biology and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
Carolyn R BertozziDepartment of Chemistry and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4401, USA. Electronic address: bertozzi@stanford.edu.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute · US

Funding

Investigations of Golgi EnzymesR01GM059907 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI BERTOZZI, CAROLYN · 1999 to 2016
$5.9M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNIGMS NIH HHS GM59907NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM059907
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance and complexity associated with the totality of glycan structures, i.e. the glycome, has garnered significant attention from chemists and biologists alike. However, what is lacking from this biochemical picture is how cells, tissues, and organisms interpret glycan patterns and translate this information into appropriate responses. Lectins, glycan-binding proteins, are thought to bridge this gap by decoding the glycome and dictating cell fate based on the underlying chemical identities and properties of the glycome. Yet, our understanding of the in vivo ligands and function for most lectins is still incomplete. This review focuses on recent advances in chemical tools to study the specificity and dynamics of mammalian lectins in live cells. A picture emerges of lectin function that is highly sensitive to its organization, which in turn drastically shapes immunity and cancer progression. We hope this review will inspire biologists to make use of these new techniques and stimulate chemists to continue developing innovative approaches to probe lectin biology in vivo.

Indexed as

AnimalsGlycoproteinsHumansLectinsLigandsPolysaccharidesGlycoproteinsLectinsLigandsPolysaccharides

Identifiers

PMID26256477
PMCPMC4567249
OpenAlexW1934413336

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.