Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32317089›Full record

ReviewBMB reports2020

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of autophagy flux using imaging.

Suree Kim, Soohee Choi, Dongmin Kang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMB reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Autophagy: a double-edged sword in ischemia-reperfusion injury.Cellular & molecular biology letters · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Functions and mechanisms of cytosolic phospholipase ANeural regeneration research · 2023
    Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Suree KimDepartment of Life Science, Fluorescence Core Imaging Center, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea.
Soohee ChoiDepartment of Life Science, Fluorescence Core Imaging Center, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea.
Dongmin KangDepartment of Life Science, Fluorescence Core Imaging Center, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea.
Ewha Womans University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As an intracellular degradation system, autophagy is an essential and defensive cellular program required for cell survival and cellular metabolic homeostasis in response to various stresses, such as nutrient deprivation and the accumulation of damaged organelles. In general, autophagy flux consists of four steps: (1) initiation (formation of phagophore), (2) maturation and completion of autophagosome, (3) fusion of autophagosomes with lysosomes (formation of autolysosome), and (4) degradation of intravesicular components within autolysosomes. The number of genes and reagents that modulate autophagy is increasing. Investigation of their effect on autophagy flux is critical to understanding the roles of autophagy in many physiological and pathological processes. In this review, we summarize and discuss ways to analyze autophagy flux quantitatively and qualitatively with the use of imaging tools. The suggested imaging method can help estimate whether each modulator is an inhibitor or a promoter of autophagy and elucidate the mode of action of specific genes and reagents on autophagy processes. [BMB Reports 2020; 53(5): 241-247].

Indexed as

AutophagyOptical ImagingAnimalsAutophagosomesHumansLysosomes

Identifiers

PMID32317089
PMCPMC7262512
OpenAlexW3017326742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.