Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42757459›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of oncology2026

[Corrigendum] TIP60 governs the auto‑ubiquitination of UHRF1 through USP7 dissociation from the UHRF1/USP7 complex.

Tanveer Ahmad, Waseem Ashraf, Abdulkhaleg Ibrahim, Liliyana Zaayter, Christian D Muller, Ali Hamiche, Yves Mély, Christian Bronner, Marc Mousli

Abstract readPublished Erratum
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Tanveer AhmadLaboratory of Bioimaging and Pathologies, CNRS UMR‑7021, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Strasbourg, 67401 Illkirch, France.
Waseem AshrafLaboratory of Bioimaging and Pathologies, CNRS UMR‑7021, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Strasbourg, 67401 Illkirch, France.
Abdulkhaleg IbrahimInstitute of Genetics and Molecular and Cellular Biology (IGBMC), INSERM U1258 CNRS UMR 7104, University of Strasbourg, 67400 Illkirch, France.
Liliyana ZaayterLaboratory of Bioimaging and Pathologies, CNRS UMR‑7021, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Strasbourg, 67401 Illkirch, France.
Christian D MullerHubert Curien Pluridisciplinary Institute (IPHC), CNRS UMR‑7178, University of Strasbourg, 67401 Illkirch, France.
Ali HamicheInstitute of Genetics and Molecular and Cellular Biology (IGBMC), INSERM U1258 CNRS UMR 7104, University of Strasbourg, 67400 Illkirch, France.
Yves MélyLaboratory of Bioimaging and Pathologies, CNRS UMR‑7021, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Strasbourg, 67401 Illkirch, France.
Christian BronnerInstitute of Genetics and Molecular and Cellular Biology (IGBMC), INSERM U1258 CNRS UMR 7104, University of Strasbourg, 67400 Illkirch, France.
Marc MousliLaboratory of Bioimaging and Pathologies, CNRS UMR‑7021, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Strasbourg, 67401 Illkirch, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following the publication of the above article, and an Expression of Concern statement (doi: 10.3892/ijo.2026.5908) that was published in light of the fact that the GAPDH control western blots shown in Fig. 5A on p. 9 were strikingly similar to the GAPDH control western blots shown in Fig. 5D, the authors have responded to the queries raised by the Editorial Office. The GAPDH panels shown in Figs. 5A and 5D were generated from the same experiment and the same set of protein lysates: Fig. 5A presented the analysis of total protein expression, whereas Fig. 5D presented immunoprecipitation analyses performed using material derived from these same experimental samples. Consequently, the GAPDH loading control was legitimately shared between the two figures. However, given that the original figure legend did not explicitly state that the same GAPDH loading control was used for both analyses, to eliminate any possible ambiguity for readers, the authors have revised Fig. 5 by replacing the representative '-MG132 panel' in Fig. 5A with results obtained from an independent repeat experiment performed under identical experimental conditions. The revised version of Fig. 5 is shown on the next page. Note that this revised figure reproduces the original findings, and does not affect the quantitative analyses, the interpretation of the data, or the conclusions of the study. Regarding a query raised by the Editorial Office concerning the presentation of flow cytometric plots in Fig. 8, the authors explained that Fig. 8E was generated by applying an additional fluorescence gate to the parent flow cytometry dataset shown in Fig. 8B, which represents standard flow cytometric analysis, rather than duplication of experimental data, and so this figure was presented correctly, and as intended by the authors. The authors thank the Editor of

Indexed as

apoptosiscancerepigeneticsfluorescence lifetime imaging microscopyprotein‑protein interactionTIP60ubiquitinationUHRF1USP7

Identifiers

PMID42757459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.