Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29459181›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in cell biology2018

Nuclear envelope rupture: little holes, big openings.

Emily M Hatch

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in cell biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Piezo1, F-Actin Remodeling, and Podocyte Survival and Regeneration.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Mechanics and functional consequences of nuclear deformations.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Causes and consequences of micronuclei.Current opinion in cell biology · 2021
    Review
  20. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emily M HatchBasic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; Human Biology Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: ehatch@fredhutch.org.
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · US

Funding

Mechanisms regulating nuclear envelope structure and stabilityR35GM124766 · NIGMS · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI HATCH, EMILY M · 2017 to 2021
$2.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM124766
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The nuclear envelope (NE), which is a critical barrier between the DNA and the cytosol, is capable of extensive dynamic membrane remodeling events in interphase. One of these events, interphase NE rupture and repair, can occur in both normal and disease states and results in the loss of nucleus compartmentalization. NE rupture is not lethal, but new research indicates that it could have broad impacts on genome stability and activate innate immune responses. These observations suggest a new model for how changes in NE structure could be pathogenic in cancer, laminopathies, and autoinflammatory syndromes, and redefine the functions of nucleus compartmentalization.

Indexed as

Cell NucleusHumansNuclear Envelope

Identifiers

PMID29459181
PMCPMC5988944
OpenAlexW2790794374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.