Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19615111›Full record

ArticleBMC proceedings2009

Pathway results from the chicken data set using GOTM, Pathway Studio and Ingenuity softwares.

Agnès Bonnet, Sandrine Lagarrigue, Laurence Liaubet, Christèle Robert-Granié, Magali Sancristobal, Gwenola Tosser-Klopp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC proceedings, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Functional pathways associated with human carotid atheroma: a proteomics analysis.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2019
    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

6 authors.

Agnès BonnetINRA, UMR444, Laboratoire de Génétique Cellulaire, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France. agnes.bonnet@toulouse.inra.fr
Sandrine Lagarrigue
Laurence Liaubet
Christèle Robert-Granié
Magali Sancristobal
Gwenola Tosser-Klopp

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs presented in the introduction paper, three sets of differentially regulated genes were found after the analysis of the chicken infection data set from EADGENE. Different methods were used to interpret these results.

resultsGOTM, Pathway Studio and Ingenuity softwares were used to investigate the three lists of genes. The three softwares allowed the analysis of the data and highlighted different networks. However, only one set of genes, showing a differential expression between primary and secondary response gave significant biological interpretation.

conclusionCombining these databases that were developed independently on different annotation sources supplies a useful tool for a global biological interpretation of microarray data, even if they may contain some imperfections (e.g. gene not or not well annotated).

Identifiers

PMID19615111
PMCPMC2712741

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.