Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25671093›Full record

ReviewGigaScience2014

Computational methods for optical mapping.

Lee Mendelowitz, Mihai Pop

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in GigaScience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Advances in optical mapping for genomic research.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. PEPR: pipelines for evaluating prokaryotic references.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. The Mouse Genomes Project: a repository of inbred laboratory mouse strain genomes.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2015
    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

2 authors.

Lee MendelowitzCenter for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD USA ; Applied Math & Statistics, and Scientific Computation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD USA.
Mihai PopCenter for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD USA ; Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD USA.

Funding

Algorithms and Software for the Assembly of Metagenomic DataR01AI100947 · NIAID · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI POP, MIHAI · 2013 to 2025
$7.4M
NEW PHYSICAL METHODOLOGIES FOR GENOMIC ANALYSISR01HG000225 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI SCHWARTZ, DAVID C. · 1991 to 2014
$5.2M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG000225NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI100947
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optical mapping and newer genome mapping technologies based on nicking enzymes provide low resolution but long-range genomic information. The optical mapping technique has been successfully used for assessing the quality of genome assemblies and for detecting large-scale structural variants and rearrangements that cannot be detected using current paired end sequencing protocols. Here, we review several algorithms and methods for building consensus optical maps and aligning restriction patterns to a reference map, as well as methods for using optical maps with sequence assemblies.

Indexed as

Genome assemblyGenome mappingOptical mappingStructural variation

Identifiers

PMID25671093
PMCPMC4323141

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.