Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34751246›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2021

Biomolecular Perturbations in In-Cell Dynamic Nuclear Polarization Experiments.

Sarah A Overall, Alexander B Barnes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pushing Sensitivity and Specificity Limits in Native Structural Biology:Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Solid-state NMR analysis of unlabeled fungal cell walls fromJournal of structural biology: X · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah A OverallLaboratory of Physical Chemistry, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Alexander B BarnesLaboratory of Physical Chemistry, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
ETH Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In-cell DNP is a growing application of NMR to the study of biomolecular structure and function within intact cells. An important unresolved question for in-cell DNP spectroscopy is the integrity of cellular samples under the cryogenic conditions of DNP. Despite the rich literature around cryopreservation of cells in the fields of stem cell/embryonic cell therapeutics, cell line preservation and in cryo-EM applications, the effect of cryopreservation procedures on DNP parameters is unclear. In this report we investigate cell survival and apoptosis in the presence of cryopreserving agents and DNP radicals. We also assess the effects of these reagents on cellular enhancements. We show that the DNP radical AMUPol has no effect on membrane permeability and does not induce apoptosis. Furthermore, the standard aqueous glass forming reagent, comprised of 60/30/10 d

Indexed as

apoptosiscell viabilitycryopreservationdynamic nuclear polarizationin-cell DNP-NMRin-cell NMR

Identifiers

PMID34751246
PMCPMC8572051
OpenAlexW3211247142

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.