Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26724722›Full record

ReviewCurrent protocols in human genetics2016

In Silico Functional Annotation of Genomic Variation.

Mariusz Butkiewicz, William S Bush

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current protocols in human genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Maternal Age at Menarche Genes Determines Fetal Growth Restriction Risk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Purging of deleterious burden in the endangered Iberian lynx.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Insights IntoFrontiers in genetics · 2018
    Article
  16. Review
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.

Mariusz ButkiewiczInstitute for Computational Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
William S BushInstitute for Computational Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

Funding

Consortium for Alzheimers Sequence Analysis (CASA)UF1AG047133 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI FARRER, LINDSAY A., HAINES, JONATHAN L · 2014 to 2014
$12.6M
NIA NIH HHS 1UF01 AG07133NIA NIH HHS UF1 AG047133
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This unit describes the concepts and practical techniques for annotating genomic variants in the human genome to estimate their functional significance. With the rapid increase of available whole exome and whole genome sequencing information for human studies, annotation techniques have become progressively more important for highlighting and prioritizing nucleotide variants and their potential impact on genes and other genetic constructs. Here, we present an overview of different types of variant annotation approaches and elaborate on their foundations, assumptions, and the downstream consequences of their use. Computational approaches and tools to assign annotations and to identify variants are reviewed. Further, the general philosophy of assigning potential function to a genetic change within the biological context of a disease is discussed.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationGenetic VariationComputational BiologyGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome, HumanGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationReproducibility of Resultsfunctional predictiongenome annotationsequence analysisvariant annotation

Identifiers

PMID26724722
PMCPMC4722816

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.