ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2013
Segmenting the human genome based on states of neutral genetic divergence.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimized primer and model improve precision of X chromosome telomere length determination in the Han population.iScience · 2026Article
- Article
- Non-B DNA: a major contributor to small- and large-scale variation in nucleotide substitution frequencies across the genome.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- Systematic discovery of conservation states for single-nucleotide annotation of the human genome.Communications biology · 2019Article
- Evolution of Local Mutation Rate and Its Determinants.Molecular biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Applications of the 1000 Genomes Project resources.Briefings in functional genomics · 2017Article
- The effects of chromatin organization on variation in mutation rates in the genome.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many studies have demonstrated that divergence levels generated by different mutation types vary and covary across the human genome. To improve our still-incomplete understanding of the mechanistic basis of this phenomenon, we analyze several mutation types simultaneously, anchoring their variation to specific regions of the genome. Using hidden Markov models on insertion, deletion, nucleotide substitution, and microsatellite divergence estimates inferred from human-orangutan alignments of neutrally evolving genomic sequences, we segment the human genome into regions corresponding to different divergence states--each uniquely characterized by specific combinations of divergence levels. We then parsed the mutagenic contributions of various biochemical processes associating divergence states with a broad range of genomic landscape features. We find that high divergence states inhabit guanine- and cytosine (GC)-rich, highly recombining subtelomeric regions; low divergence states cover inner parts of autosomes; chromosome X forms its own state with lowest divergence; and a state of elevated microsatellite mutability is interspersed across the genome. These general trends are mirrored in human diversity data from the 1000 Genomes Project, and departures from them highlight the evolutionary history of primate chromosomes. We also find that genes and noncoding functional marks [annotations from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE)] are concentrated in high divergence states. Our results provide a powerful tool for biomedical data analysis: segmentations can be used to screen personal genome variants--including those associated with cancer and other diseases--and to improve computational predictions of noncoding functional elements.
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.