Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25149370›Full record

ReviewAnnual review of genetics2014

pENCODE: a plant encyclopedia of DNA elements.

Amanda K Lane, Chad E Niederhuth, Lexiang Ji, Robert J Schmitz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annual review of genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Integrating omics databases for enhanced crop breeding.Journal of integrative bioinformatics · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. The ChIP-Hub Resource: Toward plantEncode.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Stable unmethylated DNA demarcates expressed genes and their cis-regulatory space in plant genomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  16. Review
  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

4 authors.

Amanda K LaneDepartment of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602; email: schmitz@uga.edu.
Chad E Niederhuth
Lexiang Ji
Robert J Schmitz

Funding

Identification and Characterization of Population-Wide Epigenetic VariationR00GM100000 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA · PI SCHMITZ, ROBERT J. · 2013 to 2015
$723k
NIGMS NIH HHS R00 GM100000NIGMS NIH HHS R00GM100000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ENCODE projects exist for many eukaryotes, including humans, but as of yet no defined project exists for plants. A plant ENCODE would be invaluable to the research community and could be more readily produced than its metazoan equivalents by capitalizing on the preexisting infrastructure provided from similar projects. Collecting and normalizing plant epigenomic data for a range of species will facilitate hypothesis generation, cross-species comparisons, annotation of genomes, and an understanding of epigenomic functions throughout plant evolution. Here, we discuss the need for such a project, outline the challenges it faces, and suggest ways forward to build a plant ENCODE.

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticEpigenomicsDNA MethylationGenome, HumanGenome, PlantHumansPlantsSequence Analysis, DNAcomparative epigenomicsDNA elementsepigenetics

Identifiers

PMID25149370
PMCPMC4463858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.