Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29373955›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018

SLALOM, a flexible method for the identification and statistical analysis of overlapping continuous sequence elements in sequence- and time-series data.

Roman Prytuliak, Friedhelm Pfeiffer, Bianca Hermine Habermann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Roman PrytuliakComputational Biology Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Am Klopferspitz 18, 82152, Martinsried, Germany.
Friedhelm PfeifferComputational Biology Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Am Klopferspitz 18, 82152, Martinsried, Germany.
Bianca Hermine HabermannComputational Biology Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Am Klopferspitz 18, 82152, Martinsried, Germany. bianca.habermann@univ-amu.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProtein or nucleic acid sequences contain a multitude of associated annotations representing continuous sequence elements (CSEs). Comparing these CSEs is needed, whenever we want to match identical annotations or integrate distinctive ones. Currently, there is no ready-to-use software available that provides comprehensive statistical readout for comparing two annotations of the same type with each other, which can be adapted to the application logic of the scientific question.

resultsWe have developed a method, SLALOM (for StatisticaL Analysis of Locus Overlap Method), to perform comparative analysis of sequence annotations in a highly flexible way. SLALOM implements six major operation modes and a number of additional options that can answer a variety of statistical questions about a pair of input annotations of a given sequence collection. We demonstrate the results of SLALOM on three different examples from biology and economics and compare our method to already existing software. We discuss the importance of carefully choosing the application logic to address specific scientific questions.

conclusionSLALOM is a highly versatile, command-line based method for comparing annotations in a collection of sequences, with a statistical read-out for performance evaluation and benchmarking of predictors and gene annotation pipelines. Abstraction from sequence content even allows SLALOM to compare other kinds of positional data including, for example, data coming from time series.

Indexed as

ArchaeaComputational BiologyMolecular Sequence AnnotationOpen Reading FramesProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID29373955
PMCPMC5787307

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.