Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36284703›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2022

Non-coding antisense transcripts: fine regulation of gene expression in cancer.

Francisco Santos, Ana Maria Capela, Francisca Mateus, Sandrina Nóbrega-Pereira, Bruno Bernardes de Jesus

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Novel lncRNAInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Analysis of mJournal of Cancer · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Antisense lncRNAFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Francisco SantosDepartment of Medical Sciences and Institute of Biomedicine - iBiMED, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
Ana Maria CapelaDepartment of Medical Sciences and Institute of Biomedicine - iBiMED, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
Francisca MateusDepartment of Medical Sciences and Institute of Biomedicine - iBiMED, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
Sandrina Nóbrega-PereiraDepartment of Medical Sciences and Institute of Biomedicine - iBiMED, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
Bruno Bernardes de JesusDepartment of Medical Sciences and Institute of Biomedicine - iBiMED, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
University of Aveiro · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural antisense transcripts (NATs) are coding or non-coding RNA sequences transcribed on the opposite direction from the same genomic locus. NATs are widely distributed throughout the human genome and seem to play crucial roles in physiological and pathological processes, through newly described and targeted mechanisms. NATs represent the intricate complexity of the genome organization and constitute another layer of potential targets in disease. Here, we focus on the interesting and unique role of non-coding NATs in cancer, paying particular attention to those acting as miRNA sponges.

Indexed as

Antisense transcriptsCancerceRNAslncRNAsLong non-coding RNAs

Identifiers

PMID36284703
PMCPMC9579725
OpenAlexW4304092648

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.