Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31522138›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of biological chemistry2019

Jake F Watson, Javier García-Nafría

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of biological chemistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A conserved oscillatory system that positions the divisome in Archaea.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jake F WatsonMedical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Francis Crick Avenue, Cambridge CB2 0QH, United Kingdom jwatson@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8698-3823
Javier García-NafríaInstitute for Biocomputation and Physics of Complex Systems (BIFI), University of Zaragoza, BIFI-IQFR (CSIC), 50018 Zaragoza, Spain jgarcianafria@unizar.es.ORCID 0000-0002-4254-3148
MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology · GBUniversidad de Zaragoza · ES

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105174197
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular cloning is a cornerstone of biomedical, biotechnological, and synthetic biology research. As such, improved cloning methodologies can significantly advance the speed and cost of research projects. Whereas current popular cloning approaches use

Indexed as

Cloning, MolecularDNAEscherichia coliRecombination, GeneticDNAbiotechnologycloningDNA recombinationhomologous recombinationrecombinationsynthetic biology

Identifiers

PMID31522138
PMCPMC6802500
OpenAlexW2973076100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.