Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12925891›Full record

ReviewMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2003

Insights from human/mouse genome comparisons.

Len A Pennacchio

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. New GO-based measures in multiple network alignment.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Advances in genome editing for genetic hearing loss.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Deep conservation of cis-regulatory elements in metazoans.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2013
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Host resistance to malaria: using mouse models to explore the host response.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2011
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The evolution of epitype.The Plant cell · 2010
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Len A PennacchioJoint Genome Institute, 2800 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, California, USA. LAPennacchio@lbl.gov

Funding

Comparative Genomic Resources for CV ResearchU01HL066681 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIF-LAWRENC BERKELEY LAB · PI RUBIN, EDWARD M · 2000 to 2007
$14.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS HL66681
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large-scale public genomic sequencing efforts have provided a wealth of vertebrate sequence data poised to provide insights into mammalian biology. These include deep genomic sequence coverage of human, mouse, rat, zebrafish, and two pufferfish ( Fugu rubripes and Tetraodon nigroviridis) (Aparicio et al. 2002; Lander et al. 2001; Venter et al. 2001; Waterston et al. 2002). In addition, a high-priority has been placed on determining the genomic sequence of chimpanzee, dog, cow, frog, and chicken (Boguski 2002). While only recently available, whole genome sequence data have provided the unique opportunity to globally compare complete genome contents. Furthermore, the shared evolutionary ancestry of vertebrate species has allowed the development of comparative genomic approaches to identify ancient conserved sequences with functionality. Accordingly, this review focuses on the initial comparison of available mammalian genomes and describes various insights derived from such analysis.

Indexed as

Conserved SequenceGenomeSyntenyAnimalsHumansMiceSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

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.