Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26441653›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2015

Genetically-encoded tools for cAMP probing and modulation in living systems.

Valeriy M Paramonov, Veronika Mamaeva, Cecilia Sahlgren, Adolfo Rivero-Müller

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cyclic AMP: A Polyhedral Signalling Molecule in Plants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. FSHR Trans-Activation and Oligomerization.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2018
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Exploring cells with targeted biosensors.The Journal of general physiology · 2017
    Review
  13. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Valeriy M ParamonovDepartment of Physiology, Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku , Turku, Finland ; Turku Center for Biotechnology, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University , Turku, Finland.
Veronika MamaevaDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen , Bergen, Norway.
Cecilia SahlgrenTurku Center for Biotechnology, University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University , Turku, Finland ; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology , Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Adolfo Rivero-MüllerDepartment of Physiology, Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku , Turku, Finland ; Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology, Åbo Akademi University , Turku, Finland ; Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Medical University of Lublin , Lublin, Poland.
University of Turku · FITurku Centre for Biotechnology · FIUniversity of Bergen · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracellular 3'-5'-cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) is one of the principal second messengers downstream of a manifold of signal transduction pathways, including the ones triggered by G protein-coupled receptors. Not surprisingly, biochemical assays for cAMP have been instrumental for basic research and drug discovery for decades, providing insights into cellular physiology and guiding pharmaceutical industry. However, despite impressive track record, the majority of conventional biochemical tools for cAMP probing share the same fundamental shortcoming-all the measurements require sample disruption for cAMP liberation. This common bottleneck, together with inherently low spatial resolution of measurements (as cAMP is typically analyzed in lysates of thousands of cells), underpin the ensuing limitations of the conventional cAMP assays: (1) genuine kinetic measurements of cAMP levels over time in a single given sample are unfeasible; (2) inability to obtain precise information on cAMP spatial distribution and transfer at subcellular levels, let alone the attempts to pinpoint dynamic interactions of cAMP and its effectors. At the same time, tremendous progress in synthetic biology over the recent years culminated in drastic refinement of our toolbox, allowing us not only to bypass the limitations of conventional assays, but to put intracellular cAMP life-span under tight control-something, that seemed scarcely attainable before. In this review article we discuss the main classes of modern genetically-encoded tools tailored for cAMP probing and modulation in living systems. We examine the capabilities and weaknesses of these different tools in the context of their operational characteristics and applicability to various experimental set-ups involving living cells, providing the guidance for rational selection of the best tools for particular needs.

Indexed as

biosensorcAMP signalingcell-based assayscyclic nucleotidegenetically encoded probeoptogenetics

Identifiers

PMID26441653
PMCPMC4569861
OpenAlexW2115100939

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.