Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20441577›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2010

Computational challenges in the analysis of ancient DNA.

Kay Prüfer, Udo Stenzel, Michael Hofreiter, Svante Pääbo, Janet Kelso, Richard E Green

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Computational Genomics and Its Applications to Anthropological Questions.American journal of biological anthropology · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Challenges and Opportunities behind the Use ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  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.

Kay PrüferMax-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. pruefer@eva.mpg.de
Udo Stenzel
Michael Hofreiter
Svante Pääbo
Janet Kelso
Richard E Green

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing technologies have opened up a new avenue for studying extinct organisms. Here we identify and quantify biases introduced by particular characteristics of ancient DNA samples. These analyses demonstrate the importance of closely related genomic sequence for correctly identifying and classifying bona fide endogenous DNA fragments. We show that more accurate genome divergence estimates from ancient DNA sequence can be attained using at least two outgroup genomes and appropriate filtering.

Indexed as

Extinction, BiologicalAnimalsBase SequenceComputational BiologyComputer SimulationDatabases, Nucleic AcidDNAGenetic VariationHumansSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, DNADNA

Identifiers

PMID20441577
PMCPMC2898072

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.