Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28596713›Full record

ArticleBiological procedures online2017

Performances of Different Fragment Sizes for Reduced Representation Bisulfite Sequencing in Pigs.

Xiao-Long Yuan, Zhe Zhang, Rong-Yang Pan, Ning Gao, Xi Deng, Bin Li, Hao Zhang, Per Torp Sangild, Jia-Qi Li

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biological procedures online, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Xiao-Long Yuan *Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.
Zhe Zhang *Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.
Rong-Yang PanGuangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.
Ning GaoGuangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.
Xi DengGuangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.
Bin LiGuangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.
Hao ZhangGuangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.
Per Torp SangildSection of Comparative Pediatrics and Nutrition, Department of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Jia-Qi LiGuangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) has been widely used to profile genome-scale DNA methylation in mammalian genomes. However, the applications and technical performances of RRBS with different fragment sizes have not been systematically reported in pigs, which serve as one of the important biomedical models for humans. The aims of this study were to evaluate capacities of RRBS libraries with different fragment sizes to characterize the porcine genome.

resultsWe found that the

conclusionsIn this study, our results demonstrated that selections of fragment sizes could affect the numbers and sequencing depth of detected CpG sites as well as the cost-efficiency. No single solution of RRBS is optimal in all circumstances for investigating genome-scale DNA methylation. This work provides the useful knowledge on designing and executing RRBS for investigating the genome-wide DNA methylation in tissues from pigs.

Indexed as

Different fragment sizesDNA methylationPigsRRBS

Identifiers

PMID28596713
PMCPMC5463379

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.