ArticleNature immunology2019
Publisher Correction: Uncoupling protein 2 reprograms the tumor microenvironment to support the anti-tumor immune cycle.
Article in Nature immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of the DEAD-box RNA helicase DDX5 (p68) in cancer DNA repair, immune suppression, cancer metabolic control, virus infection promotion, and human microbiome (microbiota) negative influence.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2023Review
- Development and validation of a novel immunotype for prediction of overall survival in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the version of this article initially published, the bars were not aligned with the data points or horizontal axis labels in Fig. 5d, and the labels along each horizontal axis of Fig. 5j-l indicating the presence (+) or absence (-) of doxycycline (Dox) were incorrectly included with the labels below that axis. Also, the right vertical bar above Fig. 7b linking 'P = 0.0001' to the key was incorrect; the correct comparison is αPD-1 versus Dox + αPD-1. Similarly, the right vertical bar above Fig. 7e linking 'P = 0.0002' to the key was incorrect; the correct comparison is αPD-1 versus Rosig + αPD-1. The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.
Identifiers
30862953What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.