Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21143975›Full record

ArticleBMC molecular biology2010

Identifying novel genes in C. elegans using SAGE tags.

Matthew J Nesbitt, Donald G Moerman, Nansheng Chen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC molecular biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 45% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew J NesbittDepartment of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Donald G Moerman
Nansheng Chen
Simon Fraser University · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite extensive efforts devoted to predicting protein-coding genes in genome sequences, many bona fide genes have not been found and many existing gene models are not accurate in all sequenced eukaryote genomes. This situation is partly explained by the fact that gene prediction programs have been developed based on our incomplete understanding of gene feature information such as splicing and promoter characteristics. Additionally, full-length cDNAs of many genes and their isoforms are hard to obtain due to their low level or rare expression. In order to obtain full-length sequences of all protein-coding genes, alternative approaches are required.

resultsIn this project, we have developed a method of reconstructing full-length cDNA sequences based on short expressed sequence tags which is called sequence tag-based amplification of cDNA ends (STACE). Expressed tags are used as anchors for retrieving full-length transcripts in two rounds of PCR amplification. We have demonstrated the application of STACE in reconstructing full-length cDNA sequences using expressed tags mined in an array of serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) of C. elegans cDNA libraries. We have successfully applied STACE to recover sequence information for 12 genes, for two of which we found isoforms. STACE was used to successfully recover full-length cDNA sequences for seven of these genes.

conclusionsThe STACE method can be used to effectively reconstruct full-length cDNA sequences of genes that are under-represented in cDNA sequencing projects and have been missed by existing gene prediction methods, but their existence has been suggested by short sequence tags such as SAGE tags.

Indexed as

AnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansDNA PrimersExpressed Sequence TagsGene LibrarySequence Analysis, DNADNA Primers

Identifiers

PMID21143975
PMCPMC3017025
OpenAlexW2104792727

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.