Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20888288›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in microbiology2010

Studying bacterial transcriptomes using RNA-seq.

Nicholas J Croucher, Nicholas R Thomson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing 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

136 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Essential genes formSystems · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Pleomorphic Variants ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. "Omics" Technologies - What Have They Told Us About UropathogenicFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Review
  20. Article

76 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

2 authors.

Nicholas J CroucherThe Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1SA, UK.
Nicholas R Thomson

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide studies of bacterial gene expression are shifting from microarray technology to second generation sequencing platforms. RNA-seq has a number of advantages over hybridization-based techniques, such as annotation-independent detection of transcription, improved sensitivity and increased dynamic range. Early studies have uncovered a wealth of novel coding sequences and non-coding RNA, and are revealing a transcriptional landscape that increasingly mirrors that of eukaryotes. Already basic RNA-seq protocols have been improved and adapted to looking at particular aspects of RNA biology, often with an emphasis on non-coding RNAs, and further refinements to current techniques will improve our understanding of gene expression, and genome content, in the future.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGenes, BacterialOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisRNA, BacterialSequence Analysis, RNARNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID20888288
PMCPMC3025319

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.