Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29105235›Full record

ReviewTraffic (Copenhagen, Denmark)2018

The biology and polymer physics underlying large-scale chromosome organization.

Shelley Sazer, Helmut Schiessel

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Traffic (Copenhagen, Denmark), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Appetizer on soft matter physics concepts in mechanobiology.Development, growth & differentiation · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Polymer Model of the Whole Genome.Biophysical journal · 2020
    Article
  19. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shelley SazerVerna and Marrs McLean Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Helmut SchiesselInstitute Lorentz for Theoretical Physics, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Baylor College of Medicine · USLeiden University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chromosome large-scale organization is a beautiful example of the interplay between physics and biology. DNA molecules are polymers and thus belong to the class of molecules for which physicists have developed models and formulated testable hypotheses to understand their arrangement and dynamic properties in solution, based on the principles of polymer physics. Biologists documented and discovered the biochemical basis for the structure, function and dynamic spatial organization of chromosomes in cells. The underlying principles of chromosome organization have recently been revealed in unprecedented detail using high-resolution chromosome capture technology that can simultaneously detect chromosome contact sites throughout the genome. These independent lines of investigation have now converged on a model in which DNA loops, generated by the loop extrusion mechanism, are the basic organizational and functional units of the chromosome.

Indexed as

DNAPolymersAnimalsChromatinChromosomesGenomeHumansModels, BiologicalChromatinDNAPolymerschromosome evolutionchromosome territorychromosome tetheringcohesinfractal globuleHi-Cloop extrusionpolymer physicsSMCtopologically associated domains

Identifiers

PMID29105235
PMCPMC5846894
OpenAlexW2767042011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.