The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Chemical Screening Pipeline for Identification of Specific Plant Autophagy Modulators
Published version of a preprint
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.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An enzymatic assay such as the Pho8∆60 assay may be preferred, especially when differences in autophagic activity need to be determined precisely; it requires a control to verify equal Pho8∆60 expression in the different genetic backgrounds or conditions to be tested.
“Accordingly, an enzymatic assay such as the Pho8∆60 assay may be preferred (see Autophagic protein degradation) [357,358], especially when the differences in autophagic activity need to be determined precisely (note that an equivalent assay has not been developed for more complex eukaryotic cells); however, as with any enzyme assay, appropriate caution must be used regarding, for example, sub”
From Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition) 1 (2021) · cites this paper as [357]
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
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition).
Klionsky, D. J., Abdelmohsen, K., Abe, A., Abedin, M. J., Abeliovich, H., Acevedo Arozena, A., Adachi, H., Adams, C. M., Adams, P. D., Adeli, K., et al. (2016) · Autophagy · doi:10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356 · Cited by 5,894
Self-citationChloroquine inhibits autophagic flux by decreasing autophagosome-lysosome fusion
Mauthe, M., Orhon, I., Rocchi, C., Zhou, X., Luhr, M., Hijlkema, K.-J., Coppes, R. P., Engedal, N., Mari, M., & Reggiori, F. (2018) · Autophagy · doi:10.1080/15548627.2018.1474314 · Cited by 2,122
Wu, Y.-T., Tan, H.-L., Shui, G., Bauvy, C., Huang, Q., Wenk, M. R., Ong, C.-N., Codogno, P., & Shen, H.-M. (2010) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.m109.080796 · Cited by 1,127
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Drakakaki, G. et al. Clusters of bioactive compounds target dynamic endomembrane networks in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 17850-17855 (2011).
- Klionsky, D. J. et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition). Autophagy 12, 1-222 (2016).
- Eskelin, K., Hafren, A., Rantalainen, K. I. & Makinen, K. Potyviral VPg Enhances Viral RNA Translation and Inhibits Reporter mRNA Translation In Planta. J. Virol. not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 85, 9210-9221 (2011).
- Robert, S. et al. Endosidin1 defines a compartment involved in endocytosis of the brassinosteroid receptor BRI1 and the auxin transporters PIN2 and AUX1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 8464-8469 (2008).
- Thordal-Christensen, H., Ueda, T., Nielsen, M. E., Feechan, A. & Bohlenius, H. Arabidopsis ARF-GTP exchange factor, GNOM, mediates transport required for innate immunity and focal accumulation of syntaxin PEN1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 11443-11448 (2012).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition) 1
Klionsky, D. J., Abdel-Aziz, A. K., Abdelfatah, S., Abdellatif, M., Abdoli, A., Abel, S., Abeliovich, H., Abildgaard, M. H., Abudu, Y. P., Acevedo-Arozena, A., et al. (2021) · Autophagy · doi:10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280 · Cited by 2,897
Self-citationOrtiz, R., Geleta, M., Gustafsson, C., Lager, I., Hofvander, P., Löfstedt, C., Cahoon, E. B., Minina, E., Bozhkov, P., & Stymne, S. (2020) · Current Opinion in Plant Biology · doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2019.12.003 · Cited by 60
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dauphinee, A. N., Cardoso, C., Dalman, K., Ohlsson, J. A., Fick, S. B., Robert, S., Hicks, G. R., Bozhkov, P. V., & Minina, E. A.
- Affiliations
- Department of Molecular Sciences, Uppsala BioCenter, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Linnean Center for Plant Biology, Uppsala SE-750 07, Sweden
- Chemical Biology Consortium Sweden, Umeå University, 901 87 Umea, Sweden
- Department of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Umeå Plant Science Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umea, Sweden
- Center for Plant Cell Biology and Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California, 92521
- ORCID
- Venue
- Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-09-05
- Volume
- 181
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 855-866
- ISSN
- 0032-0889
- 1532-2548
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Olle Engkvist Foundation
- Carl Tryggers Foundation
- MSCA IF
- Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
- Swedish Research Councils VR and Formas
- Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Trees and Crops for the Future
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- August T. Larsson Guest Researcher Programme
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
