The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of classical and autogenous systems of regulation in inducible operons
Open accessOverview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches
Alon, U. (2007) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2102 · Cited by 3,279
Nature, Nurture, or Chance: Stochastic Gene Expression and Its Consequences
Raj, A., & van Oudenaarden, A. (2008) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.050 · Cited by 2,593
Stochasticity in gene expression: from theories to phenotypes
Kærn, M., Elston, T. C., Blake, W. J., & Collins, J. J. (2005) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1615 · Cited by 2,320
Structure and function of the feed-forward loop network motif
Mangan, S., & Alon, U. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2133841100 · Cited by 1,827
Engineering stability in gene networks by autoregulation
Becskei, A., & Serrano, L. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35014651 · Cited by 1,520
Metadata
- Authors
- Savageau, M. A.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 1974-12
- Volume
- 252
- Issue
- 5484
- Pages
- 546-549
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2019460535
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.64
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of classical and autogenous systems of regulation in inducible operons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/252546a0
- The paper
- Savageau, M. A. (1974). Comparison of classical and autogenous systems of regulation in inducible operons. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/252546a0
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.
