Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27715478›Full record

ReviewRNA biology2016

In vitro evolution of chemically-modified nucleic acid aptamers: Pros and cons, and comprehensive selection strategies.

Farhana Lipi, Suxiang Chen, Madhuri Chakravarthy, Shilpa Rakesh, Rakesh N Veedu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in RNA biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Recent Advances in Oligonucleotide Therapeutics in Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Farhana Lipia Western Australian Neuroscience Research Institute , Perth , Australia.
Suxiang Chena Western Australian Neuroscience Research Institute , Perth , Australia.
Madhuri Chakravarthya Western Australian Neuroscience Research Institute , Perth , Australia.
Shilpa Rakesha Western Australian Neuroscience Research Institute , Perth , Australia.
Rakesh N Veedua Western Australian Neuroscience Research Institute , Perth , Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nucleic acid aptamers are single-stranded DNA or RNA oligonucleotide sequences that bind to a specific target molecule with high affinity and specificity through their ability to adopt 3-dimensional structure in solution. Aptamers have huge potential as targeted therapeutics, diagnostics, delivery agents and as biosensors. However, aptamers composed of natural nucleotide monomers are quickly degraded in vivo and show poor pharmacodynamic properties. To overcome this, chemically-modified nucleic acid aptamers are developed by incorporating modified nucleotides after or during the selection process by Systematic Evolution of Ligands by EXponential enrichment (SELEX). This review will discuss the development of chemically-modified aptamers and provide the pros and cons, and new insights on in vitro aptamer selection strategies by using chemically-modified nucleic acid libraries.

Indexed as

AnimalsAptamers, NucleotideHumansNucleic Acid ConformationSELEX Aptamer TechniqueSmall Molecule LibrariesAptamers, NucleotideSmall Molecule LibrariesAptamerschemical antibodieschemically-modified aptamersin vitro selectionmodified nucleotidesnucleic acid ligandsSELEX

Identifiers

PMID27715478
PMCPMC5207382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.