Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20843365›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2010

Context dependent substitution biases vary within the human genome.

P Andrew Nevarez, Christopher M DeBoever, Benjamin J Freeland, Marissa A Quitt, Eliot C Bush

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The descent of words.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. New words in human mutagenesis.BMC bioinformatics · 2011
    Article
  8. DNA shape, genetic codes, and evolution.Current opinion in structural biology · 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

5 authors.

P Andrew NevarezDepartment of Biology, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA, USA.
Christopher M DeBoever
Benjamin J Freeland
Marissa A Quitt
Eliot C Bush

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModels of sequence evolution typically assume that different nucleotide positions evolve independently. This assumption is widely appreciated to be an over-simplification. The best known violations involve biases due to adjacent nucleotides. There have also been suggestions that biases exist at larger scales, however this possibility has not been systematically explored.

resultsTo address this we have developed a method which identifies over- and under-represented substitution patterns and assesses their overall impact on the evolution of genome composition. Our method is designed to account for biases at smaller pattern sizes, removing their effects. We used this method to investigate context bias in the human lineage after the divergence from chimpanzee. We examined bias effects in substitution patterns between 2 and 5 bp long and found significant effects at all sizes. This included some individual three and four base pair patterns with relatively large biases. We also found that bias effects vary across the genome, differing between transposons and non-transposons, between different classes of transposons, and also near and far from genes.

conclusionsWe found that nucleotides beyond the immediately adjacent one are responsible for substantial context effects, and that these biases vary across the genome.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanAnimalsBase CompositionBase SequenceComputational BiologyDNA Transposable ElementsHumansNucleotidesPolymorphism, Single NucleotideDNA Transposable ElementsNucleotides

Identifiers

PMID20843365
PMCPMC2945941

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.