ArticlePloS one2009
A unique, consistent identifier for alternatively spliced transcript variants.
Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clusterin transcript variants expression in thyroid tumor: a potential marker of malignancy?BMC cancer · 2015Article
- ASPicDB: a database of annotated transcript and protein variants generated by alternative splicing.Nucleic acids research · 2011Article
- Assessment of orthologous splicing isoforms in human and mouse orthologous genes.BMC genomics · 2010Article
- Identification of tumor-associated cassette exons in human cancer through EST-based computational prediction and experimental validation.Molecular cancer · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs research into alternative splicing reveals the fundamental importance of this phenomenon in the genome expression of higher organisms, there is an increasing need for a standardized, consistent and unique identifier for alternatively spliced isoforms. Such an identifier would be useful to eliminate ambiguities in references to gene isoforms, and would allow for the reliable comparison of isoforms from different sources (e.g., known genes vs. computational predictions). Commonly used identifiers for gene transcripts prove to be unsuitable for this purpose. METHODOLOGY: We propose an algorithm to compute an isoform signature based on the arrangement of exons and introns in a primary transcript. The isoform signature uniquely identifies a transcript structure, and can therefore be used as a key in databases of alternatively spliced isoforms, or to compare alternative splicing predictions produced by different methods. In this paper we present the algorithm to generate isoform signatures, we provide some examples of its application, and we describe a web-based resource to generate isoform signatures and use them in database searches.
conclusionsIsoform signatures are simple, so that they can be easily generated and included in publications and databases, but flexible enough to unambiguously represent all possible isoform structures, including information about coding sequence position and variable transcription start and end sites. We believe that the adoption of isoform signatures can help establish a consistent, unambiguous nomenclature for alternative splicing isoforms. The system described in this paper is freely available at http://genome.ufl.edu/genesig/, and supplementary materials can be found at http://genome.ufl.edu/genesig-files/.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.