Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33259746›Full record

ReviewOpen biology2020

Patricia Pérez-Arnaiz, Ambika Dattani, Victoria Smith, Thorsten Allers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Open biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. CRISPR-Cas targeting inmicroLife · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Temporal and spatial coordination of DNA segregation and cell division in an archaeon.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Provirus deletion frommicroLife · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Molecular Chaperonin HSP60: Current Understanding and Future Prospects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  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

4 authors.

Patricia Pérez-ArnaizSchool of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Ambika DattaniSchool of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Victoria SmithSchool of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Thorsten AllersSchool of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/N016491/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R007543/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The tree of life shows the relationship between all organisms based on their common ancestry. Until 1977, it comprised two major branches: prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Work by Carl Woese and other microbiologists led to the recategorization of prokaryotes and the proposal of three primary domains: Eukarya, Bacteria and Archaea. Microbiological, genetic and biochemical techniques were then needed to study the third domain of life.

Indexed as

DNA, ArchaealDNA RepairDNA ReplicationBiomarkersGene Expression Regulation, ArchaealHaloferax volcaniiRecombination, GeneticBiomarkersDNA, ArchaealArchaeaDNA repairDNA replicationHaloferax volcaniihomologous recombination

Identifiers

PMID33259746
PMCPMC7776575

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.