Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28360232›Full record

ReviewGenome research2017

Genome graphs and the evolution of genome inference.

Benedict Paten, Adam M Novak, Jordan M Eizenga, Erik Garrison

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 179 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
179citing 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

179 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Lossless pangenome indexing using tag arrays.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The pangenome ofiScience · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Genomic epidemiology and phylogenomics ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article

119 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

4 authors.

Benedict PatenGenomics Institute, CBSE, 501C Engineering 2, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA.
Adam M NovakGenomics Institute, CBSE, 501C Engineering 2, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA.
Jordan M EizengaGenomics Institute, CBSE, 501C Engineering 2, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA.
Erik GarrisonWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge CB10 1SA, United Kingdom.

Funding

Training SubprojectU54HG007990 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI HAUSSLER, DAVID H, PATTERSON, DAVID · 2014 to 2018
$14.8M
NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG007990
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human reference genome is part of the foundation of modern human biology and a monumental scientific achievement. However, because it excludes a great deal of common human variation, it introduces a pervasive reference bias into the field of human genomics. To reduce this bias, it makes sense to draw on representative collections of human genomes, brought together into reference cohorts. There are a number of techniques to represent and organize data gleaned from these cohorts, many using ideas implicitly or explicitly borrowed from graph-based models. Here, we survey various projects underway to build and apply these graph-based structures-which we collectively refer to as genome graphs-and discuss the improvements in read mapping, variant calling, and haplotype determination that genome graphs are expected to produce.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsHumansPolymorphism, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID28360232
PMCPMC5411762

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.