Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17998950›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of biological sciences2007

Candidate gene identification approach: progress and challenges.

Mengjin Zhu, Shuhong Zhao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of biological sciences, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

131 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. [Association analysis between genetic nurturing effects ofBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

71 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Mengjin ZhuKey Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding, Reproduction of Ministry of Education, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, PR China.
Shuhong Zhao

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although it has been widely applied in identification of genes responsible for biomedically, economically, or even evolutionarily important complex and quantitative traits, traditional candidate gene approach is largely limited by its reliance on the priori knowledge about the physiological, biochemical or functional aspects of possible candidates. Such limitation results in a fatal information bottleneck, which has apparently become an obstacle for further applications of traditional candidate gene approach on many occasions. While the identification of candidate genes involved in genetic traits of specific interest remains a challenge, significant progress in this subject has been achieved in the last few years. Several strategies have been developed, or being developed, to break the barrier of information bottleneck. Recently, being a new developing method of candidate gene approach, digital candidate gene approach (DigiCGA) has emerged and been primarily applied to identify potential candidate genes in some studies. This review summarizes the progress, application software, online tools, and challenges related to this approach.

Indexed as

Genetic TechniquesQuantitative Trait, HeritableComputational BiologyGenomicsInformation Managementcandidate gene approachdigital candidate gene approachinformation bottleneck

Identifiers

PMID17998950
PMCPMC2043166

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.