Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21532833›Full record

ArticleCurrent genomics2010

Saturation of the human phenome.

Mark E Samuels

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current genomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Genomic study of severe fetal anomalies and discovery of GREB1L mutations in renal agenesis.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. The future is now for rare genetic diseases.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2012
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Mark E SamuelsCentre de Recherche de Ste-Justine, 3175, Côte Ste-Catherine, Montréal QC H3T 1C5, Canada.
HTC (Taiwan) · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The phenome is the complete set of phenotypes resulting from genetic variation in populations of an organism. Saturation of a phenome implies the identification and phenotypic description of mutations in all genes in an organism, potentially constrained to those encoding proteins. The human genome is believed to contain 20-25,000 protein coding genes, but only a small fraction of these have documented mutant phenotypes, thus the human phenome is far from complete. In model organisms, genetic saturation entails the identification of multiple mutant alleles of a gene or locus, allowing a consistent description of mutational phenotypes for that gene. Saturation of several model organisms has been attempted, usually by targeting annotated coding genes with insertional transposons (Drosophila melanogaster, Mus musculus) or by sequence directed deletion (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) or using libraries of antisense oligonucleotide probes injected directly into animals (Caenorhabditis elegans, Danio rerio). This paper reviews the general state of the human phenome, and discusses theoretical and practical considerations toward a saturation analysis in humans. Throughout, emphasis is placed on high penetrance genetic variation, of the kind typically asociated with monogenic versus complex traits.

Indexed as

geneticsHuman genomephenomesaturation mutagenesis.

Identifiers

PMID21532833
PMCPMC3048311
OpenAlexW2083416879

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.