Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31114032›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2019

Challenges in measuring and understanding biological noise.

Nils Eling, Michael D Morgan, John C Marioni

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 129 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing 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

129 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nils ElingEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK. eling@ebi.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4711-1176
Michael D MorganWellcome Sanger Institute, Welcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK. michael.morgan@sanger.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0757-0711
John C MarioniEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK. john.marioni@cruk.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9092-0852

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17197Cancer Research UK 22231Wellcome Trust 105045Wellcome Trust 105045/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biochemical reactions are intrinsically stochastic, leading to variation in the production of mRNAs and proteins within cells. In the scientific literature, this source of variation is typically referred to as 'noise'. The observed variability in molecular phenotypes arises from a combination of processes that amplify and attenuate noise. Our ability to quantify cell-to-cell variability in numerous biological contexts has been revolutionized by recent advances in single-cell technology, from imaging approaches through to 'omics' strategies. However, defining, accurately measuring and disentangling the stochastic and deterministic components of cell-to-cell variability is challenging. In this Review, we discuss the sources, impact and function of molecular phenotypic variability and highlight future directions to understand its role.

Identifiers

PMID31114032
PMCPMC7611518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.