Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28681859›Full record

ReviewNature nanotechnology2017

Building membrane nanopores.

Stefan Howorka

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature nanotechnology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing 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

89 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Membrane-Associated Biomolecules for Synthetic Cell Signalling.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2026
    Review
  5. Biosensing With Nanofluidics.Exploration (Beijing, China) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Wireframe DNA Origami Capable of Vertex-protruding Transformation.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

29 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

1 author.

Stefan HoworkaDepartment of Chemistry, Institute of Structural Molecular Biology, University College London, London WC1H 0AJ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Membrane nanopores-hollow nanoscale barrels that puncture biological or synthetic membranes-have become powerful tools in chemical- and biosensing, and have achieved notable success in portable DNA sequencing. The pores can be self-assembled from a variety of materials, including proteins, peptides, synthetic organic compounds and, more recently, DNA. But which building material is best for which application, and what is the relationship between pore structure and function? In this Review, I critically compare the characteristics of the different building materials, and explore the influence of the building material on pore structure, dynamics and function. I also discuss the future challenges of developing nanopore technology, and consider what the next-generation of nanopore structures could be and where further practical applications might emerge.

Indexed as

NanoporesSequence Analysis, DNASequence Analysis, Protein

Identifiers

PMID28681859

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.