Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27501045›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

The Genomic Scrapheap Challenge; Extracting Relevant Data from Unmapped Whole Genome Sequencing Reads, Including Strain Specific Genomic Segments, in Rats.

Robin H van der Weide, Marieke Simonis, Roel Hermsen, Pim Toonen, Edwin Cuppen, Joep de Ligt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Genome-to-phenome research in rats: progress and perspectives.International journal of biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

Robin H van der WeideHubrecht Institute, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marieke SimonisHubrecht Institute, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Roel HermsenHubrecht Institute, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Pim ToonenHubrecht Institute, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Edwin CuppenHubrecht Institute, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Joep de LigtHubrecht Institute, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unmapped next-generation sequencing reads are typically ignored while they contain biologically relevant information. We systematically analyzed unmapped reads from whole genome sequencing of 33 inbred rat strains. High quality reads were selected and enriched for biologically relevant sequences; similarity-based analysis revealed clustering similar to previously reported phylogenetic trees. Our results demonstrate that on average 20% of all unmapped reads harbor sequences that can be used to improve reference genomes and generate hypotheses on potential genotype-phenotype relationships. Analysis pipelines would benefit from incorporating the described methods and reference genomes would benefit from inclusion of the genomic segments obtained through these efforts.

Indexed as

GenomeAnimalsFemaleGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMaleMolecular Sequence AnnotationPhylogenyRatsRats, Inbred StrainsReference StandardsSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID27501045
PMCPMC4976967

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.