Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29608657›Full record

ReviewBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018

Understanding sequencing data as compositions: an outlook and review.

Thomas P Quinn, Ionas Erb, Mark F Richardson, Tamsyn M Crowley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 182 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
182citing 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

182 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Oral intake ofNutrients · 2023
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Unique nasal cell states induced by common pediatric respiratory viruses.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The bacteria of a fig community.Microbiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

122 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Thomas P QuinnBioinformatics Core Research Group, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Ionas ErbCentre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain.
Mark F RichardsonBioinformatics Core Research Group, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Tamsyn M CrowleyBioinformatics Core Research Group, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation: Although seldom acknowledged explicitly, count data generated by sequencing platforms exist as compositions for which the abundance of each component (e.g. gene or transcript) is only coherently interpretable relative to other components within that sample. This property arises from the assay technology itself, whereby the number of counts recorded for each sample is constrained by an arbitrary total sum (i.e. library size). Consequently, sequencing data, as compositional data, exist in a non-Euclidean space that, without normalization or transformation, renders invalid many conventional analyses, including distance measures, correlation coefficients and multivariate statistical models. Results: The purpose of this review is to summarize the principles of compositional data analysis (CoDA), provide evidence for why sequencing data are compositional, discuss compositionally valid methods available for analyzing sequencing data, and highlight future directions with regard to this field of study. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

Sequence AnalysisGene LibraryHumansModels, Statistical

Identifiers

PMID29608657
PMCPMC6084572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.