Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30254179›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2018

Evidence of

Hemant Kumar Prajapati, Meenakshi Agarwal, Priyanka Mittal, Santanu K Ghosh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Hemant Kumar PrajapatiDepartment of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-400076, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3952-5210
Meenakshi AgarwalDepartment of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.ORCID 0000-0003-4603-724X
Priyanka MittalDepartment of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-400076, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3737-6234
Santanu K GhoshDepartment of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-400076, India santanughosh@iitb.ac.in.ORCID 0000-0002-3190-8084
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay · INFlorida State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Halving of the genome during meiosis I is achieved as the homologous chromosomes move to the opposite spindle poles whereas the sister chromatids stay together and move to the same pole. This requires that the sister kinetochores should take a side-by-side orientation in order to connect to the microtubules emanating from the same pole. Factors that constrain sister kinetochores to adopt such orientation are therefore crucial to achieve reductional chromosome segregation in meiosis I. In budding yeast, a protein complex, known as monopolin, is involved in conjoining of the sister kinetochores and thus facilitates their binding to the microtubules from the same pole. In this study, we report

Indexed as

Cell Cycle ProteinsKinetochoresMeiosisMutationNuclear ProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsSaccharomycetalesCell Cycle ProteinsMam1 protein, S cerevisiaeNuclear ProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsZip1 protein, S cerevisiaebudding yeastmeiosismono-orientationSynaptonemal complexZip1

Identifiers

PMID30254179
PMCPMC6222564
OpenAlexW2898208203

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.