Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15123579›Full record

ArticleGenome research2004

Analysis of segmental duplications and genome assembly in the mouse.

Jeffrey A Bailey, Deanna M Church, Mario Ventura, Mariano Rocchi, Evan E Eichler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing 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

59 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The Complexity of the Ovine and Caprine Keratin-Associated Protein Genes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Jeffrey A BaileyDepartment of Genetics, Center for Computational Genomics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio 4410, USA.
Deanna M Church
Mario Ventura
Mariano Rocchi
Evan E Eichler

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007250 · NIGMS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI HUANG, ALEX YEE-CHEN · 1985 to 2023
$33.4M
Sequence and Assembly of Segmental DuplicationsR01HG002385 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Evan Eichler · 2001 to 2026
$13.3M
MECHANISM &INSTABILITY OF PERICENTROMERIC DUPLICATIONSR01GM058815 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI EICHLER, EVAN · 1999 to 2010
$2.9M
NCBI Production Resource DevelopmentZ01LM000160 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI OSTELL, JAMES M · 2002 to 2006
–
NCI NIH HHS CA094816NHGRI NIH HHS HG002385NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002385NIGMS NIH HHS GM58815NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM058815NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007250Telethon C.50Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limited comparative studies suggest that the human genome is particularly enriched for recent segmental duplications. The extent of segmental duplications in other mammalian genomes is unknown and confounded by methodological differences in genome assembly. Here, we present a detailed analysis of recent duplication content within the mouse genome using a whole-genome assembly comparison method and a novel assembly independent method, designed to take advantage of the reduced allelic variation of the C57BL/6J strain. We conservatively estimate that approximately 57% of all highly identical segmental duplications (>or=90%) were misassembled or collapsed within the working draft WGS assembly. The WGS approach often leaves duplications fragmented and unassigned to a chromosome when compared with the clone-ordered-based approach. Our preliminary analysis suggests that 1.7%-2.0% of the mouse genome is part of recent large segmental duplications (about half of what is observed for the human genome). We have constructed a mouse segmental duplication database to aid in the characterization of these regions and their integration into the final mouse genome assembly. This work suggests significant biological differences in the architecture of recent segmental duplications between human and mouse. In addition, our unique method provides the means for improving whole-genome shotgun sequence assembly of mouse and future mammalian genomes.

Indexed as

Gene DuplicationGenomeAnimalsBase CompositionBone Marrow CellsCell NucleusChromosome MappingComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticDNAGenesGenome, HumanHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMiceMice, Inbred C57BLDNA

Identifiers

PMID15123579
PMCPMC479105

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.