ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Comparative analysis of new, mScarlet-based red fluorescent tags in
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. 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.
- Comparative metagenomic analysis of bacterial communities associated with two mealybug species, Phenacoccus saccharifolii and Dysmicoccus carens infesting sugarcane in Tamil Nadu, India.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One problem that has hampered the use of red fluorescent proteins in the fast-developing nematode
Identifiers
What 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.