Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10508839›Full record

ArticleGenome research1999

Comparative analysis of noncoding regions of 77 orthologous mouse and human gene pairs.

N Jareborg, E Birney, R Durbin

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 78 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

78 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Mammalian NUMT insertion is non-random.Nucleic acids research · 2012
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Polymorphisms in CTNNBL1 in relation to colorectal cancer with evolutionary implications.International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics · 2011
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Fast evolution of core promoters in primate genomes.Molecular biology and evolution · 2008
    Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

N JareborgThe Sanger Centre, The Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK. niclas.jareborg@cgr.ki.se
E Birney
R Durbin

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A data set of 77 genomic mouse/human gene pairs has been compiled from the EMBL nucleotide database, and their corresponding features determined. This set was used to analyze the degree of conservation of noncoding sequences between mouse and human. A new alignment algorithm was developed to cope with the fact that large parts of noncoding sequences are not alignable in a meaningful way because of genetic drift. This new algorithm, DNA Block Aligner (DBA), finds colinear-conserved blocks that are flanked by nonconserved sequences of varying lengths. The noncoding regions of the data set were aligned with DBA. The proportion of the noncoding regions covered by blocks >60% identical was 36% for upstream regions, 50% for 5' UTRs, 23% for introns, and 56% for 3' UTRs. These blocks of high identity were more or less evenly distributed across the length of the features, except for upstream regions in which the first 100 bp upstream of the transcription start site was covered in up to 70% of the gene pairs. This data set complements earlier sets on the basis of cDNA sequences and will be useful for further comparative studies. [This paper contains supplementary data that can be found at http://www.genome.org [corrected]].

Indexed as

Conserved SequenceSequence Alignment3' Untranslated Regions5' Untranslated RegionsAlgorithmsAnimalsCpG IslandsDatabases, FactualHumansIntronsMice3' Untranslated Regions5' Untranslated Regions

Identifiers

PMID10508839
PMCPMC310816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.