Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28077953›Full record

ArticleCell division2017

Systematic epistatic mapping of cellular processes.

Maximilian Billmann, Michael Boutros

Open access · goldAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cell division, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Maximilian BillmannGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division Signaling and Functional Genomics and Heidelberg University, Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Im Neuenheimer Feld 580, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany ; Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 200 Union St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6556-9594
Michael BoutrosGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division Signaling and Functional Genomics and Heidelberg University, Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Im Neuenheimer Feld 580, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany ; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9458-817X
German Cancer Research Center · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic screens have identified many novel components of various biological processes, such as components required for cell cycle and cell division. While forward genetic screens typically generate unstructured 'hit' lists, genetic interaction mapping approaches can identify functional relations in a systematic fashion. Here, we discuss a recent study by our group demonstrating a two-step approach to first screen for regulators of the mitotic cell cycle, and subsequently guide hypothesis generation by using genetic interaction analysis. The screen used a high-content microscopy assay and automated image analysis to capture defects during mitotic progression and cytokinesis. Genetic interaction networks derived from process-specific features generate a snapshot of functional gene relations in those processes, which follow a temporal order during the cell cycle. This complements a recently published approach, which inferred directional genetic interactions reconstructing hierarchical relationships between genes across different phases during mitotic progression. In conclusion, this strategy leverages unbiased, genome-wide, yet highly sensitive and process-focused functional screening in cells.

Indexed as

Cell cycleGenetic interactionsImage analysisRNAi

Identifiers

PMID28077953
PMCPMC5223360
OpenAlexW2569416239

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.