The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Long-lived Protein Degradation Assay: an Efficient Method for Quantitative Determination of the Autophagic Flux of Endogenous Proteins in Adherent Cell Lines
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?
One approach to evaluate autophagic flux is to measure the rate of general protein breakdown by autophagy.
“One approach to evaluate autophagic flux is to measure the rate of general protein breakdown by autophagy [6,25,26].”
From Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition) 1 (2021) · cites this paper as [25]
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
Modulation of intracellular calcium homeostasis blocks autophagosome formation
Engedal, N., Torgersen, M. L., Guldvik, I. J., Barfeld, S. J., Bakula, D., Sætre, F., Hagen, L. K., Patterson, J. B., Proikas-Cezanne, T., Seglen, P. O., et al. (2013) · Autophagy · doi:10.4161/auto.25900 · Cited by 104
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 10.1016/S0076-6879(08)03604-5 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-biochem-061516-044908 · DOI
- 10.1042/BJ20030282 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S1357-2725(02)00382-5 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00726-014-1765-4 · DOI
- 10.1083/jcb.152.4.657 · DOI · Paper page
- Nakabayashi, H., Taketa, K., Miyano, K., Yamane, T. and Sato, J. (1982). Growth of human hepatoma cells lines with differentiated functions in chemically defined medium. Cancer Res 42(9): 3858-3863.
- 10.1016/0014-4827(79)90421-X · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1979.tb12956.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1978.tb12208.x · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1521919112 · DOI
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-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Luhr, M., Sætre, F., & Engedal, N.
- Venue
- BIO-PROTOCOL
- Publisher
- Bio-Protocol, LLC
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 9
- ISSN
- 2331-8325
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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
