ReviewGenomics, proteomics & bioinformatics2015
Web resources for model organism studies.
Review in Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comparative genome analysis of plant ascomycete fungal pathogens with different lifestyles reveals distinctive virulence strategies.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Organotypic Models in Drug Development "Tumor Models and Cancer Systems Biology for the Investigation of Anticancer Drugs and Resistance Development".Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2021Article
- Proteomics in Non-model Organisms: A New Analytical Frontier.Journal of proteome research · 2020Article
- Live imaging of Tribolium castaneum embryonic development using light-sheet-based fluorescence microscopy.Nature protocols · 2015Article
- On bioinformatic resources.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An ever-growing number of resources on model organisms have emerged with the continued development of sequencing technologies. In this paper, we review 13 databases of model organisms, most of which are reported by the National Institutes of Health of the United States (NIH; http://www.nih.gov/science/models/). We provide a brief description for each database, as well as detail its data source and types, functions, tools, and availability of access. In addition, we also provide a quality assessment about these databases. Significantly, the organism databases instituted in the early 1990s--such as the Mouse Genome Database (MGD), Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD), and FlyBase--have developed into what are now comprehensive, core authority resources. Furthermore, all of the databases mentioned here update continually according to user feedback and with advancing technologies.
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.