Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34759908›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2021

Inhibition of PKR by Viruses.

Teresa Cesaro, Thomas Michiels

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Unraveling the complexities of neurotropic virus infection and immune evasion.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Teresa Cesarode Duve Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Thomas Michielsde Duve Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
de Duve Institute · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cells respond to viral infections through sensors that detect non-self-molecules, and through effectors, which can have direct antiviral activities or adapt cell physiology to limit viral infection and propagation. Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2 alpha kinase 2, better known as PKR, acts as both a sensor and an effector in the response to viral infections. After sensing double-stranded RNA molecules in infected cells, PKR self-activates and majorly exerts its antiviral function by blocking the translation machinery and inducing apoptosis. The antiviral potency of PKR is emphasized by the number of strategies developed by viruses to antagonize the PKR pathway. In this review, we present an update on the diversity of such strategies, which range from preventing double-stranded RNA recognition upstream from PKR activation, to activating eIF2B downstream from PKR targets.

Indexed as

double-stranded RNAinnate immunityinnate immunity evasionintegrated stress responsemRNA translationviral proteins

Identifiers

PMID34759908
PMCPMC8573351
OpenAlexW3210687303

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.