Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24115604›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2013

On the need for mechanistic models in computational genomics and metagenomics.

David A Liberles, Ashley I Teufel, Liang Liu, Tanja Stadler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Protein Evolution in the Flaviviruses.Journal of molecular evolution · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Introgression and repeated co-option facilitated the recurrent emergence of CEvolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

David A LiberlesDepartment of Molecular Biology, University of Wyoming.
Ashley I Teufel
Liang Liu
Tanja Stadler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational genomics is now generating very large volumes of data that have the potential to be used to address important questions in both basic biology and biomedicine. Addressing these important biological questions becomes possible when mechanistic models rooted in biochemistry and evolutionary/population genetic processes are developed, instead of fitting data to off-the-shelf statistical distributions that do not enable mechanistic inference. Three examples are presented, the first involving ecological processes inferred from metagenomic data, the second involving mechanisms of gene regulation rooted in protein-DNA interactions with consideration of DNA structure, and the third involving existing models for the retention of duplicate genes that enables prediction of evolutionary mechanisms. This description of mechanistic models is generalized toward future developments in computational genomics and the need for biological mechanisms and processes in biological models.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyEvolution, MolecularMetagenomicsBacteriaDNA-Binding ProteinsEcologyGene DuplicationGene Expression RegulationGene Regulatory NetworksModels, TheoreticalDNA-Binding Proteinsbacterial ecologycomputational biologygene duplicationmolecular evolutionstochastic modelingtranscriptional regulation

Identifiers

PMID24115604
PMCPMC3814209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.