ArticleBMC genomics2014
Distance-based assessment of the localization of functional annotations in 3D genome reconstructions.
Article in BMC genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing chromatin relocalization in 3D using the patient rule induction method.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Can 3D diploid genome reconstruction from unphased Hi-C data be salvaged?NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Principal curve approaches for inferring 3D chromatin architecture.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Assessing stationary distributions derived from chromatin contact maps.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Improved accuracy assessment for 3D genome reconstructions.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Article
- Statistical challenges in analyzing methylation and long-range chromosomal interaction data.Statistics in biosciences · 2016Article
- Discovering hotspots in functional genomic data superposed on 3D chromatin configuration reconstructions.Nucleic acids research · 2016Article
- Reconstruction of 3D genome architecture via a two-stage algorithm.BMC bioinformatics · 2015Article
- Analysis methods for studying the 3D architecture of the genome.Genome biology · 2015Review
- Improving 3D Genome Reconstructions Using Orthologous and Functional Constraints.PLoS computational biology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies used the contact data or three-dimensional (3D) genome reconstructions from Hi-C (chromosome conformation capture with next-generation sequencing) to assess the co-localization of functional genomic annotations in the nucleus. These analyses dichotomized data point pairs belonging to a functional annotation as "close" or "far" based on some threshold and then tested for enrichment of "close" pairs. We propose an alternative approach that avoids dichotomization of the data and instead directly estimates the significance of distances within the 3D reconstruction.
resultsWe applied this approach to 3D genome reconstructions for Plasmodium falciparum, the causative agent of malaria, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae and compared the results to previous approaches. We found significant 3D co-localization of centromeres, telomeres, virulence genes, and several sets of genes with developmentally regulated expression in P. falciparum; and significant 3D co-localization of centromeres and long terminal repeats in S. cerevisiae. Additionally, we tested the experimental observation that telomeres form three to seven clusters in P. falciparum and S. cerevisiae. Applying affinity propagation clustering to telomere coordinates in the 3D reconstructions yielded six telomere clusters for both organisms.
conclusionsDistance-based assessment replicated key findings, while avoiding dichotomization of the data (which previously yielded threshold-sensitive results).
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.