Evolutionarily conserved noncoding DNA in the human genome: how much and what for?

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.

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.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Predicting functional UTR variants by integrating region-specific features.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024
   Article
2. A draft de novo genome assembly for the northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) reveals evidence for a rapid decline in effective population size beginning in the Late Pleistocene.PloS one · 2014
   Article
3. A multi-platform draft de novo genome assembly and comparative analysis for the Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao).PloS one · 2013
   Article
4. Deterministic mutation rate variation in the human genome.Genome research · 2002
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Evolutionarily conserved sequences on human chromosome 21.2001

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as