ReviewCells2020
13 Plus 1: A 30-Year Perspective on Microtubule-Based Motility in
Review in Cells, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dissecting the function of the DNMT2-homolog (DNMA) in Dictyostelium discoideum.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- Phosphatidic acid-dependent recruitment of microtubule motors to spherical supported lipid bilayers for in vitro motility assays.Cell reports · 2024Article
- An altered transcriptome underliesFrontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Bioenergetics of theBiomolecules · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individual gene analyses of microtubule-based motor proteins in
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.