Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20194435›Full record

ArticleGenes & development2010

Personal genome sequencing: current approaches and challenges.

Michael Snyder, Jiang Du, Mark Gerstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes & development, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing 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

63 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Diversity and population-genetic properties of copy number variations and multicopy genes in cattle.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

3 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

3 authors.

Michael SnyderDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, California 94305, USA. mpsnyder@stanford.edu
Jiang Du
Mark Gerstein

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The revolution in DNA sequencing technologies has now made it feasible to determine the genome sequences of many individuals; i.e., "personal genomes." Genome sequences of cells and tissues from both normal and disease states have been determined. Using current approaches, whole human genome sequences are not typically assembled and determined de novo, but, instead, variations relative to a reference sequence are identified. We discuss the current state of personal genome sequencing, the main steps involved in determining a genome sequence (i.e., identifying single-nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs] and structural variations [SVs], assembling new sequences, and phasing haplotypes), and the challenges and performance metrics for evaluating the accuracy of the reconstruction. Finally, we consider the possible individual and societal benefits of personal genome sequences.

Indexed as

Genetic PrivacyGenetic VariationGenome, HumanHumansReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID20194435
PMCPMC2827837

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.