Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29657305›Full record

ReviewNon-coding RNA2018

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current Strategies to Map and Characterize R-Loops.

Vincent Vanoosthuyse

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Non-coding RNA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mapping R-Loops Using Catalytically Inactive RNaseH1 (R-ChIP).Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

1 author.

Vincent VanoosthuyseUMR5239 CNRS, Université de Lyon, ENS-Lyon, 46 allée d'Italie, 69007 Lyon, France. vincent.vanoosthuyse@ens-lyon.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-4416-1557

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

R-loops are evolutionarily conserved three-stranded structures that result from the formation of stable DNA:RNA hybrids in the genome. R-loops have attracted increasing interest in recent years as potent regulators of gene expression and genome stability. In particular, their strong association with severe replication stress makes them potential oncogenic structures. Despite their importance, the rules that govern their formation and their dynamics are still controversial and an in-depth description of their direct impact on chromatin organization and DNA transactions is still lacking. To better understand the diversity of R-loop functions, reliable, accurate, and quantitative mapping techniques, as well as functional assays are required. Here, I review the different approaches that are currently used to do so and to highlight their individual strengths and weaknesses. In particular, I review the advantages and disadvantages of using the S9.6 antibody to map R-loops in vivo in an attempt to propose guidelines for best practices.

Indexed as

DRIPR-ChIPR-loopsRNase H1S9.6

Identifiers

PMID29657305
PMCPMC6027298

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.