Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24699242›Full record

ReviewPLoS genetics2014

Phenotype ontologies and cross-species analysis for translational research.

Peter N Robinson, Caleb Webber

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Bridging mouse and human anatomies; a knowledge-based approach to comparative anatomy for disease model phenotyping.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Generalizable Long COVID Subtypes: Findings from the NIH N3C and RECOVER Programs.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2022
    Article
  7. Prenatal phenotyping: A community effort to enhance the Human Phenotype Ontology.American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Model validity for preclinical studies in precision medicine: precisely how precise do we need to be?Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2019
    Article
  13. Review: New sensors and data-driven approaches-A path to next generation phenomics.Plant science : an international journal of experimental plant biology · 2019
    Review
  14. Computational aspects underlying genome to phenome analysis in plants.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Human Phenotype Ontology in 2017.Nucleic acids research · 2017
    Review
  20. The digital revolution in phenotyping.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2016
    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.

Peter N RobinsonInstitute for Medical Genetics and Human Genetics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Berlin Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany; Institute for Bioinformatics, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Caleb WebberMRC Functional Genomics Unit, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UP_A320_1004Medical Research Council MC_UU_12021/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of model organisms as tools for the investigation of human genetic variation has significantly and rapidly advanced our understanding of the aetiologies underlying hereditary traits. However, while equivalences in the DNA sequence of two species may be readily inferred through evolutionary models, the identification of equivalence in the phenotypic consequences resulting from comparable genetic variation is far from straightforward, limiting the value of the modelling paradigm. In this review, we provide an overview of the emerging statistical and computational approaches to objectively identify phenotypic equivalence between human and model organisms with examples from the vertebrate models, mouse and zebrafish. Firstly, we discuss enrichment approaches, which deem the most frequent phenotype among the orthologues of a set of genes associated with a common human phenotype as the orthologous phenotype, or phenolog, in the model species. Secondly, we introduce and discuss computational reasoning approaches to identify phenotypic equivalences made possible through the development of intra- and interspecies ontologies. Finally, we consider the particular challenges involved in modelling neuropsychiatric disorders, which illustrate many of the remaining difficulties in developing comprehensive and unequivocal interspecies phenotype mappings.

Indexed as

Biological OntologiesPhenotypeAnimalsBiological EvolutionComputational BiologyGenetic VariationHumansTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID24699242
PMCPMC3974665

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.