Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28955449›Full record

ReviewFungal biology and biotechnology2014

Fungal biology in the post-genomic era.

Claudio Scazzocchio

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Fungal biology and biotechnology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Fungal evolution: cellular, genomic and metabolic complexity.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2020
    Article
  4. Review
  5. How a fungus shapes biotechnology: 100 years ofFungal biology and biotechnology · 2018
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Openness and visibility of fungal bio(techno)logy.Fungal biology and biotechnology · 2017
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. The freedom of choice.Fungal biology and biotechnology · 2016
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Welcome toFungal biology and biotechnology · 2014
    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

1 author.

Claudio ScazzocchioDepartment of Microbiology, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AZ UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review I give a personal perspective of how fungal biology has changed since I started my Ph. D. in 1963. At that time we were working in the shadow of the birth of molecular biology as an autonomous and reductionistic discipline, embodied in Crick's central dogma. This first period was methodologically characterised by the fact that we knew what genes were, but we could not access them directly. This radically changed in the 70s-80s when gene cloning, reverse genetics and DNA sequencing become possible. The "next generation" sequencing techniques have produced a further qualitative revolutionary change. The ready access to genomes and transcriptomes of any microbial organism allows old questions to be asked in a radically different way and new questions to be approached. I provide examples chosen somewhat arbitrarily to illustrate some of these changes, from applied aspects to fundamental problems such as the origin of fungal specific genes, the evolutionary history of genes clusters and the realisation of the pervasiveness of horizontal transmission. Finally, I address how the ready availability of genomes and transcriptomes could change the status of model organisms.

Identifiers

PMID28955449
PMCPMC5611559

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.