Erratum to: The genome of the Antarctic-endemic copepod, Tigriopus kingsejongensis.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Helminths of the Antarctic dragonfish, Parachaenichthys charcoti (Perciformes, Notothenioidei, Bathydraconidae) Studied near Galindez Island (Argentine Islands, West Antarctica).Acta parasitologica · 2021
   Article
2. Evolution of chaperome gene expression and regulatory elements in the antarctic notothenioid fishes.Heredity · 2021
   Article
3. A genetic linkage map for the salmon louse (Lepeophtheirus salmonis): evidence for high male:female and inter-familial recombination rate differences.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  The genome of the Antarctic-endemic copepod, Tigriopus kingsejongensis.2017

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.