Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35805103›Full record

ReviewCells2022

Explaining Redundancy in CDK-Mediated Control of the Cell Cycle: Unifying the Continuum and Quantitative Models.

Daniel Fisher, Liliana Krasinska

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Daniel FisherInstitut de Génétique Moléculaire de Montpellier (IGMM), Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), University of Montpellier, 34293 Montpellier, France.
Liliana KrasinskaInstitut de Génétique Moléculaire de Montpellier (IGMM), Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), University of Montpellier, 34293 Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6858-0852
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In eukaryotes, cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) are required for the onset of DNA replication and mitosis, and distinct CDK-cyclin complexes are activated sequentially throughout the cell cycle. It is widely thought that specific complexes are required to traverse a point of commitment to the cell cycle in G1, and to promote S-phase and mitosis, respectively. Thus, according to a popular model that has dominated the field for decades, the inherent specificity of distinct CDK-cyclin complexes for different substrates at each phase of the cell cycle generates the correct order and timing of events. However, the results from the knockouts of genes encoding cyclins and CDKs do not support this model. An alternative "quantitative" model, validated by much recent work, suggests that it is the overall level of CDK activity (with the opposing input of phosphatases) that determines the timing and order of S-phase and mitosis. We take this model further by suggesting that the subdivision of the cell cycle into discrete phases (G0, G1, S, G2, and M) is outdated and problematic. Instead, we revive the "continuum" model of the cell cycle and propose that a combination with the quantitative model better defines a conceptual framework for understanding cell cycle control.

Indexed as

Cyclin-Dependent KinasesCyclinsCell CycleCell Cycle CheckpointsMitosisCyclin-Dependent KinasesCyclinscell cycle controlcyclin-dependent kinaseredundancyspecificity

Identifiers

PMID35805103
PMCPMC9265933
OpenAlexW4283452688

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.