Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26548915›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2015

Modulation of p53 during bacterial infections.

Christine Siegl, Thomas Rudel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The rise and evolving role ofCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Molecular and Pathology Features of Colorectal Tumors and Patient Outcomes Are Associated withCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. TheFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Genes · 2020
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christine SieglDepartment of Microbiology, Biocenter, University of Würzburg, Am Hubland, D-97074 Würzburg, Germany.
Thomas RudelDepartment of Microbiology, Biocenter, University of Würzburg, Am Hubland, D-97074 Würzburg, Germany.
University of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, numerous bacterial pathogens have been shown to inactivate the major tumour suppressor p53 during infection. This inactivation impedes the protective response of the host cell to the genotoxicity that often results from bacterial infection. Moreover, a new aspect of the antibacterial activity of p53 that has recently come to light - downregulation of host cell metabolism to interfere with intracellular bacterial replication - has further highlighted the crucial role of p53 in host-pathogen interactions, as host cell metabolism is relevant for all intracellular bacteria, as well as other pathogens that replicate inside host cells and use host metabolites. In this Progress article, we summarize recent work that has advanced our knowledge of the interaction between pathogenic bacteria and p53, and we discuss the known and expected outcomes of this interaction for pathogenesis.

Indexed as

Host-Pathogen InteractionsAnimalsBacterial InfectionsEnergy MetabolismHumansStress, PhysiologicalTumor Suppressor Protein p53Tumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID26548915
OpenAlexW2194415883

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.