Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27040487›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2016

Endogenous microRNA sponges: evidence and controversy.

Daniel W Thomson, Marcel E Dinger

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,296 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,296citing 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

1,296 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The dark genome in cardiovascular medicine.European heart journal · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Bacterial small regulatory RNAs.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Veterinary sciences · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1,236 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Daniel W ThomsonGarvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010, Australia.
Marcel E DingerGarvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) hypothesis proposes that transcripts with shared microRNA (miRNA) binding sites compete for post-transcriptional control. This hypothesis has gained substantial attention as a unifying function for long non-coding RNAs, pseudogene transcripts and circular RNAs, as well as an alternative function for messenger RNAs. Empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis is accumulating but not without attracting scepticism. Recent studies that model transcriptome-wide binding-site abundance suggest that physiological changes in expression of most individual transcripts will not compromise miRNA activity. In this Review, we critically evaluate the evidence for and against the ceRNA hypothesis to assess the impact of endogenous miRNA-sponge interactions.

Indexed as

Gene Expression RegulationPseudogenesRNA InterferenceAnimalsHumansMicroRNAsRNA, Long NoncodingTranscriptomeMicroRNAsRNA, Long Noncoding

Identifiers

PMID27040487

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.