Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30355621›Full record

ArticleDisease models & mechanisms2018

Functional testing of a human

Gist H Farr, Kimia Imani, Darren Pouv, Lisa Maves

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Disease models & mechanisms, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Mending a broken heart:Disease models & mechanisms · 2021
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. PBX3 in Cancer.Cancers · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Homology-Directed Repair in Zebrafish: Witchcraft and Wizardry?Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Zebrafish knock-ins swim into the mainstream.Disease models & mechanisms · 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gist H FarrCenter for Developmental Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, USA.
Kimia ImaniCenter for Developmental Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, USA.
Darren PouvCenter for Developmental Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, USA.
Lisa MavesCenter for Developmental Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, USA lmaves@u.washington.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9798-790X
Seattle Children's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole-genome and exome sequencing efforts are increasingly identifying candidate genetic variants associated with human disease. However, predicting and testing the pathogenicity of a genetic variant remains challenging. Genome editing allows for the rigorous functional testing of human genetic variants in animal models. Congenital heart defects (CHDs) are a prominent example of a human disorder with complex genetics. An inherited sequence variant in the human

Indexed as

AnimalsBase SequenceGenetic Association StudiesGenetic EngineeringHeart Defects, CongenitalHomeodomain ProteinsHumansMorphogenesisMutagenesisMutationMyocardiumProto-Oncogene ProteinsZebrafishZebrafish ProteinsHomeodomain Proteinsproto-oncogene protein Pbx3Proto-Oncogene ProteinsZebrafish ProteinsCRISPR-Cas9Genetic variantHeartModifierPbxZebrafish

Identifiers

PMID30355621
PMCPMC6215422
OpenAlexW2953258023

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.