Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27260942›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

RepeatAnalyzer: a tool for analysing and managing short-sequence repeat data.

Helen N Catanese, Kelly A Brayton, Assefaw H Gebremedhin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Transovarial Transmission ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  7. Artificial Feeding ofMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Temporal Dynamics ofMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Mexican Strains ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  12. Characterization of strains ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022
    Article
  13. Failure to Eliminate PersistentVeterinary sciences · 2021
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

3 authors.

Helen N CataneseSchool of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 99164, USA.
Kelly A BraytonDepartment of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 99164, USA.
Assefaw H GebremedhinSchool of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 99164, USA. assefaw@eecs.wsu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShort-sequence repeats (SSRs) occur in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic DNA, inter- and intragenically, and may be exact or inexact copies. When heterogeneous SSRs are present in a given locus, we can take advantage of the pattern of different repeats to genotype strains based on the SSRs. Cataloguing and tracking these repeats can be difficult as diverse groups of researchers are involved in the identification of the repeats. Additionally, the task is error-prone when done manually.

resultsWe developed RepeatAnalyzer, a new software tool capable of tracking, managing, analysing and cataloguing SSRs and genotypes using Anaplasma marginale as a model species. RepeatAnalyzer's analysis capability includes novel metrics for measuring regional genetic diversity (corresponding to variety and regularity of SSR occurrence). As a part of its visualization capabilities, RepeatAnalyzer produces high quality maps of the geographic distribution of genotypes or SSRs over a region of interest. RepeatAnalyzer's repeat identification functionality was validated for all SSRs and genotypes reported in 21 publications, using 380 A. marginale isolates gathered from the five publications within that list that provided access to their isolates. The tool produced accurate genotyping results in every case. In addition, it uncovered a number of errors in the published literature: 11 cases where SSRs were misreported, 5 cases where two different SSRs had been given the same name, and 16 cases where two or more names had been given to a single SSR. The analysis and visualization functionalities of the tool are demonstrated using several examples.

conclusionsRepeatAnalyzer is a robust software tool that can be used for storing, managing, and analysing short-sequence repeats for the purpose of strain identification. The tool can be used for any set of SSRs regardless of species. When applied to A. marginale, our test case, we show that genotype lengths for a given region follow a normal distribution, while SSR frequencies follow a power-law-like distribution. Further, we find that over 90 % of repeats are 28 to 29 amino acids long, which is in agreement with conventional wisdom. Lastly, our analysis reveals that the most common edit distance is five or six, which is counter-intuitive since we expected that result to be closer to one, resulting from the simplest change from one repeat to another.

Indexed as

Microsatellite RepeatsSoftwareAnaplasma marginaleComputational BiologyGenetic VariationGenomicsGenotypeReproducibility of ResultsStreptococcus pneumoniaeAnaplasma marginaleGenetic diversityGenotypingKnuth-Morris-Pratt algorithmMsp1aRepeatAnalyzerShort sequence repeat (SSR)Software toolVisualization

Identifiers

PMID27260942
PMCPMC4891823

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.