ArticleNucleic acids research2017
Identifying transposon insertions and their effects from RNA-sequencing data.
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 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- NetCIS: a network-based common insertion site pipeline for case-control Sleeping Beauty screens.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- SB Digestor: a tailored driver gene identification tool for dissecting heterogeneous Sleeping Beauty transposon-induced tumors.International journal of biological sciences · 2023Article
- CRISPR and transposon in vivo screens for cancer drivers and therapeutic targets.Genome biology · 2020Review
- PiggyBac mutagenesis and exome sequencing identify genetic driver landscapes and potential therapeutic targets of EGFR-mutant gliomas.Genome biology · 2020Article
- Mouse models in the era of large human tumour sequencing studies.Open biology · 2018Review
- Insertional mutagenesis identifies drivers of a novel oncogenic pathway in invasive lobular breast carcinoma.Nature genetics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Insertional mutagenesis using engineered transposons is a potent forward genetic screening technique used to identify cancer genes in mouse model systems. In the analysis of these screens, transposon insertion sites are typically identified by targeted DNA-sequencing and subsequently assigned to predicted target genes using heuristics. As such, these approaches provide no direct evidence that insertions actually affect their predicted targets or how transcripts of these genes are affected. To address this, we developed IM-Fusion, an approach that identifies insertion sites from gene-transposon fusions in standard single- and paired-end RNA-sequencing data. We demonstrate IM-Fusion on two separate transposon screens of 123 mammary tumors and 20 B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias, respectively. We show that IM-Fusion accurately identifies transposon insertions and their true target genes. Furthermore, by combining the identified insertion sites with expression quantification, we show that we can determine the effect of a transposon insertion on its target gene(s) and prioritize insertions that have a significant effect on expression. We expect that IM-Fusion will significantly enhance the accuracy of cancer gene discovery in forward genetic screens and provide initial insight into the biological effects of insertions on candidate cancer genes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.