CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Increased Activity of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1 Is Associated with Early Embryonic Lethality in Commd1 Null Mice

van de Sluis, Bart, Muller, Patricia, Duran, Karen, Chen, Amy, Groot, Arjan J., Klomp, Leo W., Liu, Paul P., Wijmenga, Cisca·2007·Molecular and Cellular Biology
DOI 10.1128/mcb.01932-06
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1128/mcb.01932-06

Cites

3 of 3 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

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?

  • A complete loss of components of the endosomal recycling machinery is lethal in mice.

    “This combined with the notion that a complete loss of components of the endosomal recycling machinery is lethal in mice 12,13,37 indicated that impairment of this pathway is very harmful.”

    From A common variant in CCDC93 protects against myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality by regulating endosomal trafficking of low-density lipoprotein receptor (2020) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Results report that complete loss of COMMD1 causes embryonic lethality in mice, with null embryos dying around 9.5–10.5 days of gestation. The paper does not identify COMMD1 as a component of the endosomal recycling machinery, so it supports the lethality example but not that characterization. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • When COMMD9 is knocked out, CCDC22 cannot bind COMMD5 or COMMD10 but retains its ability to bind COMMD6, COMMD4, and COMMD8.

    “We previously reported41 that when COMMD9 is knocked out, CCDC22 cannot bind COMMD5 or COMMD10 but retains its ability to bind to COMMD6, COMMD4, COMMD8.”

    From Structural organization of the retriever–CCC endosomal recycling complex (2024) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Abstract and Results describe a Commd1 knockout and its effects on early mouse embryos, not a COMMD9 knockout. Searches for CCDC22 binding and the named COMMD proteins found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed binding pattern. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Aprelikova O., 2004, J. Cell. Biochem., 92, 491, 10.1002/jcb.20067 · DOI
  2. Biasio W., 2004, J. Biol. Chem., 279, 5429, 10.1074/jbc.M311155200 · DOI
  3. Brummelkamp T. R., 2002, Cancer Cell, 2, 243, 10.1016/S1535-6108(02)00122-8 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Brummelkamp T. R., 2002, Science, 296, 550, 10.1126/science.1068999 · DOI
  5. Burstein E., 2004, EMBO J., 23, 244, 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600031 · DOI
  6. Burstein E., 2005, J. Biol. Chem., 280, 22222, 10.1074/jbc.M501928200 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Coronado V. A., 2003, Mamm. Genome, 14, 483, 10.1007/s00335-002-2255-3 · DOI
  8. Cowden Dahl K. D., 2005, Mol. Cell. Biol., 25, 10479, 10.1128/MCB.25.23.10479-10491.2005 · DOI
  9. de Bie P., 2006, Biochem. J., 398, 63, 10.1042/BJ20051664 · DOI
  10. Donadio S., 2007, Placenta
  11. Duckett C. S., 1997, Mol. Cell. Biol., 17, 1535, 10.1128/MCB.17.3.1535 · DOI
  12. Ganesh L., 2003, Nature, 426, 853, 10.1038/nature02171 · DOI
  13. Gnarra J. R., 1997, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94, 9102, 10.1073/pnas.94.17.9102 · DOI
  14. Greene W. C., 2004, Nat. Immunol., 5, 18, 10.1038/ni0104-18 · DOI
  15. Greijer A. E., 2005, J. Pathol., 206, 291, 10.1002/path.1778 · DOI
  16. Hardy R. M., 1975, Minn. Vet., 15, 13
  17. Haywood S., 2001, J. Small Anim. Pract., 42, 181, 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2001.tb01799.x · DOI
  18. Hofker M. H., 2002, Transgenic mouse methods and protocols, 209, 10.1385/1592593402 · DOI
  19. Hong S. B., 2006, Lab. Investig., 86, 664, 10.1038/labinvest.3700431 · DOI
  20. Klomp A. E., 2003, J. Hepatol., 39, 703, 10.1016/S0168-8278(03)00380-5 · DOI
  21. Kuo Y. M., 2001, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 98, 6836, 10.1073/pnas.111057298 · DOI
  22. Lee J., 2001, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 98, 6842, 10.1073/pnas.111058698 · DOI
  23. Lee J. W., 2004, Exp. Mol. Med., 36, 1, 10.1038/emm.2004.1 · DOI
  24. Maine G. N., 2007, EMBO J., 26, 436, 10.1038/sj.emboj.7601489 · DOI
  25. Mercer J. F., 1998, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 67, 1022S, 10.1093/ajcn/67.5.1022S · DOI
  26. Murphy B. J., 2005, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 337, 860, 10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.09.124 · DOI
  27. Nabetani A., 1997, Mol. Cell. Biol., 17, 789, 10.1128/MCB.17.2.789 · DOI
  28. Nada S., 1993, Cell, 73, 1125, 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90642-4 · DOI
  29. Pause A., 1997, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94, 2156, 10.1073/pnas.94.6.2156 · DOI
  30. Rossant J., 2001, Nat. Rev. Genet., 2, 538, 10.1038/35080570 · DOI
  31. Scheel J. R., 2003, Nucleic Acids Res., 31, e57, 10.1093/nar/gng057 · DOI
  32. Semenza G. L., 2000, Genes Dev., 14, 1983, 10.1101/gad.14.16.1983 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Shibata T., 2000, Gene Ther., 7, 493, 10.1038/sj.gt.3301124 · DOI
  34. Su L. C., 1982, Am. J. Physiol., 243, G231
  35. Su L. C., 1982, Am. J. Physiol., 243, G226
  36. Takeda K., 2006, Mol. Cell. Biol., 26, 8336, 10.1128/MCB.00425-06 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Tao T. Y., 2003, J. Biol. Chem., 278, 41593, 10.1074/jbc.C300391200 · DOI
  38. van de Sluis B., 2002, Hum. Mol. Genet., 11, 165, 10.1093/hmg/11.2.165 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Vengellur A., 2003, Gene Expr., 11, 181, 10.3727/000000003108749062 · DOI
  40. Vrljicak P., 2004, Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol., 286, F625, 10.1152/ajprenal.00152.2003 · DOI
  41. Wang Y., 2004, Mol. Cell. Biol., 24, 270, 10.1128/MCB.24.1.270-279.2004 · DOI
  42. Wang Y., 2002, Genes Genet. Syst., 77, 377, 10.1266/ggs.77.377 · DOI
  43. Zhang Z., 2006, Gene, 366, 77, 10.1016/j.gene.2005.08.020 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
van de Sluis, B., Muller, P., Duran, K., Chen, A., Groot, A. J., Klomp, L. W., Liu, P. P., & Wijmenga, C.
Venue
Molecular and Cellular Biology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2007-06-01
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
4142-4156
ISSN
1098-5549
DOI
10.1128/mcb.01932-06
Cited by
105
References
3
Language
en
Licence
journals.asm.org/non-commercial-tdm-license (tdm)

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