Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20038630›Full record

ArticleRNA (New York, N.Y.)2010

High-throughput quantification of splicing isoforms.

Jean-Philippe Brosseau, Jean-François Lucier, Elvy Lapointe, Mathieu Durand, Daniel Gendron, Julien Gervais-Bird, Karine Tremblay, Jean-Pierre Perreault, Sherif Abou Elela

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in RNA (New York, N.Y.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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. Spatiotemporal Loss ofCancer discovery · 2019
    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

9 authors.

Jean-Philippe BrosseauUniversite de Sherbrooke, Departement de Microbiologie et d'Infectiologie Sherbrooke, Quebec J1H 5N4, Canada.
Jean-François Lucier
Elvy Lapointe
Mathieu Durand
Daniel Gendron
Julien Gervais-Bird
Karine Tremblay
Jean-Pierre Perreault
Sherif Abou Elela

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most human messenger RNAs (mRNAs) are alternatively spliced and many exhibit disease-specific splicing patterns. However, the contribution of most splicing events to the development and maintenance of human diseases remains unclear. As the contribution of alternative splicing events to diagnosis and prognosis is becoming increasingly recognized, it becomes important to develop precise methods to quantify the abundance of these isoforms in clinical samples. Here we present a pipeline for real-time PCR annotation of splicing events (RASE) that allows accurate identification of a large number of splicing isoforms in human tissues. The RASE automatically designed specific primer pairs for 81% of all alternative splicing events in the NCBI build 36 database. Experimentally, the majority of the RASE designed primers resulted in isoform-specific amplification suitable for quantification in human cell lines or in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) RNA extract. Using this pipeline it is now possible to rapidly identify splicing isoform signatures in different types of human tissues or to validate complete sets of data generated by microarray expression profiling and deep sequencing techniques.

Indexed as

Alternative SplicingBase SequenceDNA PrimersHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionRNA, MessengerRNA Splice SitesDNA PrimersRNA, MessengerRNA Splice Sites

Identifiers

PMID20038630
PMCPMC2811672

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.