Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18371222›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008

Snagger: a user-friendly program for incorporating additional information for tagSNP selection.

Christopher K Edlund, Won H Lee, Dalin Li, David J Van Den Berg, David V Conti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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.

Christopher K EdlundKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033, USA. cedlund@usc.edu
Won H Lee
Dalin Li
David J Van Den Berg
David V Conti

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Fumito Ito · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
TRANSDISCIPLINARY TOBACCO USE RESEARCH CENTERP50CA084735 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI AZEN, STANLEY P · 1999 to 2008
$18.0M
NCI NIH HHS 5P30 CA14089-30NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089NCI NIH HHS P50 CA084735NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM074496
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been considerable effort focused on developing efficient programs for tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Many of these programs do not account for potential reduced genomic coverage resulting from genotyping failures nor do they preferentially select SNPs based on functionality, which may be more likely to be biologically important.

resultsWe have developed a user-friendly and efficient software program, Snagger, as an extension to the existing open-source software, Haploview, which uses pairwise r2 linkage disequilibrium between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to select tagSNPs. Snagger distinguishes itself from existing SNP selection algorithms, including Tagger, by providing user options that allow for: (1) prioritization of tagSNPs based on certain characteristics, including platform-specific design scores, functionality (i.e., coding status), and chromosomal position, (2) efficient selection of SNPs across multiple populations, (3) selection of tagSNPs outside defined genomic regions to improve coverage and genotyping success, and (4) picking of surrogate tagSNPs that serve as backups for tagSNPs whose failure would result in a significant loss of data. Using HapMap genotype data from ten ENCODE regions and design scores for the Illumina platform, we show similar coverage and design score distribution and fewer total tagSNPs selected by Snagger compared to the web server Tagger.

conclusionSnagger improves upon current available tagSNP software packages by providing a means for researchers to select tagSNPs that reliably capture genetic variation across multiple populations while accounting for significant genotyping failure risk and prioritizing on SNP-specific characteristics.

Indexed as

Expressed Sequence TagsSoftwareBase SequenceChromosome MappingDNA Mutational AnalysisGenetic VariationLinkage DisequilibriumMolecular Sequence DataPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID18371222
PMCPMC2375134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.