ArticleMicrobiology (Reading, England)2021
Lox'd in translation: contradictions in the nomenclature surrounding common lox-site mutants and their implications in experiments.
Article in Microbiology (Reading, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A toolbox for manipulating the genome of the major goat pathogen,Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2024Article
- Mechanisms of Cre recombinase synaptic complex assembly and activation illuminated by Cryo-EM.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Cre-Lox system is a highly versatile and powerful DNA recombinase mechanism, mainly used in genetic engineering to insert or remove desired DNA sequences. It is widely utilized across multiple fields of biology, with applications ranging from plants, to mammals, to microbes. A key feature of this system is its ability to allow recombination between mutant lox sites. Two of the most commonly used mutant sites are named lox66 and lox71, which recombine to create a functionally inactive double mutant lox72 site. However, a large portion of the published literature has incorrectly annotated these mutant lox sites, which in turn can lead to difficulties in replication of methods, design of proper vectors and confusion over the proper nomenclature. Here, we demonstrate common errors in annotations, the impacts they can have on experimental viability, and a standardized naming convention. We also show an example of how this incorrect annotation can induce toxic effects in bacteria that lack optimal DNA repair systems, exemplified by
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.