ArticleMolecular cell2022
Enhancers have more cofactor specificity than we think: A potential new way to classify enhancers based on their functional cofactor requirements.
Article in Molecular cell, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Case of a Missing HLA-B Gene.HLA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
By systematically assessing the effects of depleting eight cofactors on enhancer activity, Neumayr et al. (2022) found that different enhancers have different requirements for some perceived universal cofactors. While some cofactors influence enhancer strength, others affect enhancer-promoter specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35985301What 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.