Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30307532›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2019

Colocalization analyses of genomic elements: approaches, recommendations and challenges.

Chakravarthi Kanduri, Christoph Bock, Sveinung Gundersen, Eivind Hovig, Geir Kjetil Sandve

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Fast Context-Aware Analysis of Genome Annotation Colocalization.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Chakravarthi KanduriDepartment of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Christoph BockCeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria.
Sveinung GundersenDepartment of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Eivind HovigDepartment of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Geir Kjetil SandveDepartment of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationMany high-throughput methods produce sets of genomic regions as one of their main outputs. Scientists often use genomic colocalization analysis to interpret such region sets, for example to identify interesting enrichments and to understand the interplay between the underlying biological processes. Although widely used, there is little standardization in how these analyses are performed. Different practices can substantially affect the conclusions of colocalization analyses.

resultsHere, we describe the different approaches and provide recommendations for performing genomic colocalization analysis, while also discussing common methodological challenges that may influence the conclusions. As illustrated by concrete example cases, careful attention to analysis details is needed in order to meet these challenges and to obtain a robust and biologically meaningful interpretation of genomic region set data. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

GenomeGenomics

Identifiers

PMID30307532
PMCPMC6499241

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.