Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31817503›Full record

ReviewCells2019

Specification of BMP Signaling.

Joachim Nickel, Thomas D Mueller

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. ModelingJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. YAP/TAZ Signalling Controls Epidermal Keratinocyte Fate.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 country.

Joachim NickelDepartment of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine (TERM), University Hospital Wuerzburg, Roentgenring 11, D-97070 Wuerzburg, Germany.
Thomas D MuellerDepartment of Molecular Plant Physiology and Biophysics, Julius-von-Sachs Institute, University Wuerzburg, Julius-von-Sachs Platz 2, D-97082 Wuerzburg, Germany.
Leibniz Association · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs) together with the Growth and Differentiation Factors (GDFs) form the largest subgroup of the Transforming Growth Factor (TGF)β family and represent secreted growth factors, which play an essential role in many aspects of cell communication in higher organisms. As morphogens they exert crucial functions during embryonal development, but are also involved in tissue homeostasis and regeneration in the adult organism. Their involvement in maintenance and repair processes of various tissues and organs made these growth factors highly interesting targets for novel pharmaceutical applications in regenerative medicine. A hallmark of the TGFβ protein family is that all of the more than 30 growth factors identified to date signal by binding and hetero-oligomerization of a very limited set of transmembrane serine-threonine kinase receptors, which can be classified into two subgroups termed type I and type II. Only seven type I and five type II receptors exist for all 30plus TGFβ members suggesting a pronounced ligand-receptor promiscuity. Indeed, many TGFβ ligands can bind the same type I or type II receptor and a particular receptor of either subtype can usually interact with and bind various TGFβ ligands. The possible consequence of this ligand-receptor promiscuity is further aggravated by the finding that canonical TGFβ signaling of all family members seemingly results in the activation of just two distinct signaling pathways, that is either SMAD2/3 or SMAD1/5/8 activation. While this would implicate that different ligands can assemble seemingly identical receptor complexes that activate just either one of two distinct pathways, in vitro and in vivo analyses show that the different TGFβ members exert quite distinct biological functions with high specificity. This discrepancy indicates that our current view of TGFβ signaling initiation just by hetero-oligomerization of two receptor subtypes and transduction via two main pathways in an on-off switch manner is too simplified. Hence, the signals generated by the various TGFβ members are either quantitatively interpreted using the subtle differences in their receptor-binding properties leading to ligand-specific modulation of the downstream signaling cascade or additional components participating in the signaling activation complex allow diversification of the encoded signal in a ligand-dependent manner at all cellular levels. In this review we focus on signal specification of TGFβ members, particularly of BMPs and GDFs addressing the role of binding affinities, specificities, and kinetics of individual ligand-receptor interactions for the assembly of specific receptor complexes with potentially distinct signaling properties.

Indexed as

Signal TransductionAnimalsBone Morphogenetic ProteinsHumansIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsLigandsProtein BindingProtein MultimerizationSmad ProteinsTransforming Growth Factor betaBone Morphogenetic ProteinsIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsLigandsSmad ProteinsTransforming Growth Factor betaligand-receptor promiscuitysignal specificationTGF/BMP signaling

Identifiers

PMID31817503
PMCPMC6953019
OpenAlexW2994480515

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.