Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31267064›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2019

Alternative cleavage and polyadenylation in health and disease.

Andreas J Gruber, Mihaela Zavolan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 285 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
285citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
24.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

285 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 493 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

225 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andreas J GruberOxford Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. andreas.gruber@bdi.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7664-4257
Mihaela ZavolanComputational and Systems Biology, Biozentrum, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. mihaela.zavolan@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8832-2041
University of Basel · CHUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most human genes have multiple sites at which RNA 3' end cleavage and polyadenylation can occur, enabling the expression of distinct transcript isoforms under different conditions. Novel methods to sequence RNA 3' ends have generated comprehensive catalogues of polyadenylation (poly(A)) sites; their analysis using innovative computational methods has revealed how poly(A) site choice is regulated by core RNA 3' end processing factors, such as cleavage factor I and cleavage and polyadenylation specificity factor, as well as by other RNA-binding proteins, particularly splicing factors. Here, we review the experimental and computational methods that have enabled the global mapping of mRNA and of long non-coding RNA 3' ends, quantification of the resulting isoforms and the discovery of regulators of alternative cleavage and polyadenylation (APA). We highlight the different types of APA-derived isoforms and their functional differences, and illustrate how APA contributes to human diseases, including cancer and haematological, immunological and neurological diseases.

Indexed as

3' Untranslated RegionsAnimalsDiseaseHealthHumansPolyadenylationRNA-Binding ProteinsRNA, Long NoncodingRNA, Messenger3' Untranslated RegionsRNA-Binding ProteinsRNA, Long NoncodingRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID31267064
OpenAlexW2953929685

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.