Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23362369›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics and biology insights2013

PREPACT 2.0: Predicting C-to-U and U-to-C RNA Editing in Organelle Genome Sequences with Multiple References and Curated RNA Editing Annotation.

Henning Lenz, Volker Knoop

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics and biology insights, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Organelle genome architecture ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Mitochondrial genome ofFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparative Plastomics of Plantains (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Extensive characterization of 28 complete chloroplast genomes ofComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Article
  13. Comparative analysis of mitochondrial genomes ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Henning LenzAbteilung Molekulare Evolution, Institut für Zelluläre und Molekulare Botanik, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Volker Knoop

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RNA editing is vast in some genetic systems, with up to thousands of targeted C-to-U and U-to-C substitutions in mitochondria and chloroplasts of certain plants. Efficient prognoses of RNA editing in organelle genomes will help to reveal overlooked cases of editing. We present PREPACT 2.0 (http://www.prepact.de) with numerous enhancements of our previously developed Plant RNA Editing Prediction & Analysis Computer Tool. Reference organelle transcriptomes for editing prediction have been extended and reorganized to include 19 curated mitochondrial and 13 chloroplast genomes, now allowing to distinguish RNA editing sites from "pre-edited" sites. Queries may be run against multiple references and a new "commons" function identifies and highlights orthologous candidate editing sites congruently predicted by multiple references. Enhancements to the BLASTX mode in PREPACT 2.0 allow querying of complete novel organelle genomes within a few minutes, identifying protein genes and candidate RNA editing sites simultaneously without prior user analyses.

Indexed as

BLASTXchloroplast DNAmitochondrial DNAplantsprotistspyrimidine substitutionsRNA editing prediction

Identifiers

PMID23362369
PMCPMC3547502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.