Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27899657›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2017

The eukaryotic promoter database in its 30th year: focus on non-vertebrate organisms.

René Dreos, Giovanna Ambrosini, Romain Groux, Rouaïda Cavin Périer, Philipp Bucher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 164 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
164citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

164 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. DNMT Enzymes and Their Impact on Cervical Cancer: A State-of-the-Art Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

104 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

René DreosSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland rene.dreos@epfl.ch.
Giovanna AmbrosiniSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Romain GrouxSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Rouaïda Cavin PérierSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Philipp BucherSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present an update of the Eukaryotic Promoter Database EPD (http://epd.vital-it.ch), more specifically on the EPDnew division, which contains comprehensive organisms-specific transcription start site (TSS) collections automatically derived from next generation sequencing (NGS) data. Thanks to the abundant release of new high-throughput transcript mapping data (CAGE, TSS-seq, GRO-cap) the database could be extended to plant and fungal species. We further report on the expansion of the mass genome annotation (MGA) repository containing promoter-relevant chromatin profiling data and on improvements for the EPD entry viewers. Finally, we present a new data access tool, ChIP-Extract, which enables computational biologists to extract diverse types of promoter-associated data in numerical table formats that are readily imported into statistical analysis platforms such as R.

Indexed as

Databases, Nucleic AcidPromoter Regions, GeneticAnimalsEukaryotaFungiHumansPlantsTranscription Initiation Site

Identifiers

PMID27899657
PMCPMC5210552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.