Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28725224›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2017

Nanobody Technology: A Versatile Toolkit for Microscopic Imaging, Protein-Protein Interaction Analysis, and Protein Function Exploration.

Els Beghein, Jan Gettemans

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed
19.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

110 citing papers in PubMed, 200 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

50 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Els BegheinNanobody Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jan GettemansNanobody Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last two decades, nanobodies or single-domain antibodies have found their way in research, diagnostics, and therapy. These antigen-binding fragments, derived from Camelid heavy chain only antibodies, possess remarkable characteristics that favor their use over conventional antibodies or fragments thereof, in selected areas of research. In this review, we assess the current status of nanobodies as research tools in diverse aspects of fundamental research. We discuss the use of nanobodies as detection reagents in fluorescence microscopy and focus on recent advances in super-resolution microscopy. Second, application of nanobody technology in investigating protein-protein interactions is reviewed, with emphasis on possible uses in mass spectrometry. Finally, we discuss the potential value of nanobodies in studying protein function, and we focus on their recently reported application in targeted protein degradation. Throughout the review, we highlight state-of-the-art engineering strategies that could expand nanobody versatility and we suggest future applications of the technology in the selected areas of fundamental research.

Indexed as

engineeringfundamental researchnanobodyprotein–protein interactionssingle-domain antibodysuper-resolution microscopytargeted protein degradationVHH

Identifiers

PMID28725224
PMCPMC5495861
OpenAlexW2724786424

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.