Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chaperone-mediated autophagy in protein quality control

Open access
Arias, Esperanza, Cuervo, Ana Maria·2011·Current Opinion in Cell Biology

Abstract

Chaperone-mediated autophagy is a selective mechanism for degradation of soluble cytosolic proteins in lysosomes that distinguishes itself from other autophagic pathways by the selectivity with which CMA substrates are targeted for degradation. The recent molecular dissection of this autophagic pathway and the development of experimental models with compromised CMA have unveiled the important contribution of this pathway to protein quality control. In fact, CMA activation seems to be a common mechanism of cellular defense against proteotoxicity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ceb.2010.10.009

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Arias, E., & Cuervo, A. M.
Venue
Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
184-189
ISSN
0955-0674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2011241228
Cited by
313
References
12
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.