Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29255646›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2017

Characterization of a

Sven Koglin, Daronja Trense, Michael Wink, Hedwig Sauer-Gürth, Dieter Thomas Tietze

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. PeerJ · 2018
    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

5 authors.

Sven KoglinInstitute for Pharmacy and Molecular Biotechnology, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Daronja TrenseZoological Institute and Museum, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Michael WinkInstitute for Pharmacy and Molecular Biotechnology, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hedwig Sauer-GürthInstitute for Pharmacy and Molecular Biotechnology, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Dieter Thomas TietzeInstitute for Pharmacy and Molecular Biotechnology, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, next generation high throughput sequencing technologies have proven to be useful tools for investigations concerning the genomics or transcriptomics also of non-model species. Consequently, ornithologists have adopted these technologies and the respective bioinformatics tools to survey the genomes and transcriptomes of a few avian non-model species. The Common Blackbird is one of the most common bird species living in European cities, which has successfully colonized urban areas and for which no reference genome or transcriptome is publicly available. However, to target questions like genome wide gene expression analysis, a reference genome or transcriptome is needed.

methodsTherefore, in this study two Common Blackbirds were sacrificed, their mRNA was isolated and analyzed by RNA-Seq to

resultsFollowing the annotation against protein databases, we found evidence for 15,580 genes in the transcriptome (all well characterized hits after annotation). On 18% of the assembled transcripts, 144,742 SNPs were identified which are, consequently, 0.09% of all nucleotides in the assembled transcriptome. In the transcriptome and in the single tissues (brain, heart and liver), 10,182 shared genes were found. DISCUSSION: Using a next-generation technology and bioinformatics tools, we made a first step towards the genomic investigation of the Common Blackbird. The

Indexed as

Common blackbirdOrnithologyRNAseqSNPTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID29255646
PMCPMC5732540

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.