ArticleNucleic acids research2024
Striving for clarity in language about gene expression.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of host and viral nascent and steady-state RNA levels in a human neuronal model of herpes simplex virus 1 infection.PLoS pathogens · 2026Article
- Massive deciphering of the tissue nucleic acid-binding proteome via affinity chromatography integrated with data-independent acquisition-based proteomics.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Selecting differential splicing methods: Practical considerations for short-read RNA sequencing.F1000Research · 2025Review
- Chromatin and transcription in Nucleic Acids Research: the first 50 years.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
What do we mean when we say 'gene expression'? In the decades following Crick's 1958 central dogma of molecular biology, whereby genetic information flows from DNA (genes) to RNA (transcripts) to protein (products), we have learned a great deal about DNA, RNA, proteins, and the ensuing phenotypic changes. With the advent of high-throughput technologies (1990s), molecular biologists and computer scientists forged critical collaborations to understand the vast amount of data being generated, rapidly escalating gene expression research to the 'omics' level: entire sets of genes (genomes), transcribed RNAs (transcriptomes), and synthesized proteins (proteomes). However, some concessions came to be made for molecular biologists and computer scientists to understand each other-one of the most prevalent being the increasingly widespread use of 'gene' to mean 'RNAs originating from a DNA segment'. This loosening of terminology, we will argue, creates ambiguity and confusion. We propose guidelines to increase precision and clarity when communicating about gene expression, most notably to reserve 'gene' for the DNA template and 'transcript' for the RNA transcribed from that gene. Striving to use perspicuous terminology will promote rigorous gene expression science and accelerate discovery in this highly promising area of biology.
Indexed as
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.