Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20643209›Full record

ReviewMethods (San Diego, Calif.)2011

Mapping quantitative traits and strategies to find quantitative trait genes.

Jonathan Flint

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. eLife · 2019
    Article
  3. Genome-wide association for testis weight in the diversity outbred mouse population.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2018
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Association studies in outbred mice in a new era of full-genome sequencing.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2012
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Fine-mapping alleles for body weight in LG/J × SM/J F₂ and F(34) advanced intercross lines.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2011
    Article
  17. Mouse models and type 2 diabetes: translational opportunities.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2011
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cancer evolution and individual susceptibility.Integrative biology : quantitative biosciences from nano to macro · 2011
    Review
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

1 author.

Jonathan FlintWellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7BN, UK. jf@well.ox.ac.uk

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1999 a meeting took place at the Jackson Laboratory, a large mouse research centre in Bar Harbor, Maine, to consider the value of systematically collecting phenotypes on inbred strains of mice (Paigen and Eppig (2000) [1]). The group concluded that cataloguing the extensive phenotypic diversity present among laboratory mice, and in particular providing the research community with data from cohorts of animals, phenotyped according to standardized protocols, was essential if we were to take advantage of the possibilities of mouse genetics. Beginning with the collection of basic physiological, biochemical and behavioral data on nine commonly used inbred strains, the project has expanded so that by the beginning of 2010 data for 178 strains had been collected, with 105 phenotype projects yielding over 2000 different measurements (Bogue et al. (2007) [2].

Indexed as

Quantitative Trait LociAnimalsChromosome MappingCrosses, GeneticGenomeInbreedingLod ScoreMiceMice, Inbred StrainsPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID20643209
PMCPMC3036800

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.