Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35420426›Full record

SynthesisAnalytical chemistry2022

Systematic Review of Aptamer Sequence Reporting in the Literature Reveals Widespread Unexplained Sequence Alterations.

Alexandra A Miller, Abhijit S Rao, Sujana R Nelakanti, Christopher Kujalowicz, Ted Shi, Ted Rodriguez, Andrew D Ellington, Gwendolyn M Stovall

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Analytical chemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Alexandra A MillerTexas Institute for Discovery Education in Science Freshman Research Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.
Abhijit S RaoTexas Institute for Discovery Education in Science Freshman Research Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.
Sujana R NelakantiTexas Institute for Discovery Education in Science Freshman Research Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.
Christopher KujalowiczTexas Institute for Discovery Education in Science Freshman Research Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.
Ted ShiTexas Institute for Discovery Education in Science Freshman Research Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.
Ted RodriguezTexas Institute for Discovery Education in Science Freshman Research Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.
Andrew D EllingtonInstitute for Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6246-5338
Gwendolyn M StovallTexas Institute for Discovery Education in Science Freshman Research Initiative, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7525-9733

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute 52008124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aptamers have been the subject of more than 144 000 papers to date. However, there has been a growing concern that discrepancies in the reporting of aptamer research limit the reliability of these reagents for research and other applications. These observations noting inconsistencies in the use of our RNA antilysozyme aptamer served as an impetus for our systematic review of the reporting of aptamer sequences in the literature. Our detailed examination of the literature citing the RNA antilysozyme aptamer revealed that 93% of the 61 publications reviewed reported unexplained altered sequences with 96% of those using DNA variants. The 10 most cited aptamers were examined using a standardized methodology in order to categorize the extent to which the sequences themselves and altered sequences were adequately described in the literature. Our review of 780 aptamer publications spanned decades, multiple journals, and research groups and revealed that 41% of the papers reported unexplained sequence alterations or omitted sequences. We identified 10 common categories of sequence alterations including deletions, substitutions, and additions, among others. Overall, our findings can be used as a starting point for building better practices in author submissions and publication standards, elevating the rigor and reproducibility of aptamer research.

Indexed as

Aptamers, NucleotideReproducibility of ResultsRNASELEX Aptamer TechniqueAptamers, NucleotideRNA

Identifiers

PMID35420426
PMCPMC9179646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.