Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16432206›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2006

Genomic fossils as a snapshot of the human transcriptome.

Ronen Shemesh, Amit Novik, Sarit Edelheit, Rotem Sorek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. AnABlast: a new in silico strategy for the genome-wide search of novel genes and fossil regions.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2015
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Alternative splicing: a missing piece in the puzzle of intron gain.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2008
    Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Ronen ShemeshCompugen Ltd., 72 Pinchas Rosen Street, Tel Aviv 69512, Israel.
Amit Novik
Sarit Edelheit
Rotem Sorek

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Processed pseudogenes (PPGs) are cDNA sequences that were generated through reverse transcription of mature, spliced mRNAs and have subsequently been reinserted at a new genomic location. These cDNA sequences are usually no longer transcribed and are considered "dead on arrival." Here we show that PPGs can be used to generate a map of the transcriptome. By analyzing thousands of human PPGs, we were able to discover hundreds of transcript variants so far unidentified. An experimental verification of a subset of these variants by RT-PCR indicates that most of them are still active in the human transcriptome. Furthermore, we demonstrate that PPGs can enable the identification of ancient splice variants that were expressed ancestrally but are now extinct. Our results show that the genome itself carries a "virtual cDNA library" that can readily be used to analyze both present and ancestral transcripts. Our approach can be applied to sequenced metazoan genomes to computationally annotate splicing variation even when expressed sequences are unavailable.

Indexed as

FossilsGenomeGenome, HumanTranscription, GeneticAlternative SplicingBase SequenceDNA, ComplementaryExonsExpressed Sequence TagsGene LibraryHumansModels, GeneticMolecular Sequence DataPhylogenyPolymerase Chain ReactionPseudogenesDNA, ComplementaryRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID16432206
PMCPMC1360558

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.