Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10958633›Full record

ArticleGenome research2000

Alfresco--a workbench for comparative genomic sequence analysis.

N Jareborg, R Durbin

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. CGAS: comparative genomic analysis server.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2009
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Insights from human/mouse genome comparisons.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2003
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

N JareborgThe Sanger Centre, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SA, United Kingdom. niclas.jareborg@cgr.ki.se
R Durbin
Wellcome Sanger Institute · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparative analysis of genomic sequences provides a powerful tool for identifying regions of potential biologic function; by comparing corresponding regions of genomes from suitable species, protein coding or regulatory regions can be identified by their homology. This requires the use of several specific types of computational analysis tools. Many programs exist for these types of analysis; not many exist for overall view/control of the results, which is necessary for large-scale genomic sequence analysis. Using Java, we have developed a new visualization tool that allows effective comparative genome sequence analysis. The program handles a pair of sequences from putatively homologous regions in different species. Results from various different existing external analysis programs, such as database searching, gene prediction, repeat masking, and alignment programs, are visualized and used to find corresponding functional sequence domains in the two sequences. The user interacts with the program through a graphic display of the genome regions, in which an independently scrollable and zoomable symbolic representation of the sequences is shown. As an example, the analysis of two unannotated orthologous genomic sequences from human and mouse containing parts of the UTY locus is presented.

Indexed as

Genomic LibraryAlgorithmsAnimalsComputational BiologyCpG IslandsDatabases, FactualExpressed Sequence TagsHumansMiceSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, DNASequence Homology, Nucleic AcidSoftware

Identifiers

PMID10958633
PMCPMC310917
OpenAlexW2035634951

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.