ArticlePloS one2013
Combining evidence of preferential gene-tissue relationships from multiple sources.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid genotype "independent"In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Plant : journal of the Tissue Culture Association · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An important challenge in drug discovery and disease prognosis is to predict genes that are preferentially expressed in one or a few tissues, i.e. showing a considerably higher expression in one tissue(s) compared to the others. Although several data sources and methods have been published explicitly for this purpose, they often disagree and it is not evident how to retrieve these genes and how to distinguish true biological findings from those that are due to choice-of-method and/or experimental settings. In this work we have developed a computational approach that combines results from multiple methods and datasets with the aim to eliminate method/study-specific biases and to improve the predictability of preferentially expressed human genes. A rule-based score is used to merge and assign support to the results. Five sets of genes with known tissue specificity were used for parameter pruning and cross-validation. In total we identify 3434 tissue-specific genes. We compare the genes of highest scores with the public databases: PaGenBase (microarray), TiGER (EST) and HPA (protein expression data). The results have 85% overlap to PaGenBase, 71% to TiGER and only 28% to HPA. 99% of our predictions have support from at least one of these databases. Our approach also performs better than any of the databases on identifying drug targets and biomarkers with known tissue-specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.