Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28287462›Full record

ReviewBiology2017

SNP Discovery Using a Pangenome: Has the Single Reference Approach Become Obsolete?

Bhavna Hurgobin, David Edwards

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing 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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Investigating Pangenome Graphs Using Wheat Panache.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Bhavna HurgobinSchool of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, QLD, Australia. b.hurgobin@uq.edu.au.
David EdwardsSchool of Biological Sciences and Institute of Agriculture, University of Western Australia, Perth 6009, WA, Australia. dave.edwards@uwa.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing evidence suggests that a single individual is insufficient to capture the genetic diversity within a species due to gene presence absence variation. In order to understand the extent to which genomic variation occurs in a species, the construction of its pangenome is necessary. The pangenome represents the complete set of genes of a species; it is composed of core genes, which are present in all individuals, and variable genes, which are present only in some individuals. Aside from variations at the gene level, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are also an important form of genetic variation. The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) coupled with the heritability of SNPs make them ideal markers for genetic analysis of human, animal, and microbial data. SNPs have also been extensively used in crop genetics for association mapping, quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis, analysis of genetic diversity, and phylogenetic analysis. This review focuses on the use of pangenomes for SNP discovery. It highlights the advantages of using a pangenome rather than a single reference for this purpose. This review also demonstrates how extra information not captured in a single reference alone can be used to provide additional support for linking genotypic data to phenotypic data.

Indexed as

assemblycopy number variationcore genomegenegenetic diversitypangenomepresence absence variationsingle nucleotide polymorphismSNP discoveryvariable genome

Identifiers

PMID28287462
PMCPMC5372014

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.