Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31152127›Full record

ArticlePlant physiology2019

Generic Repeat Finder: A High-Sensitivity Tool for Genome-Wide De Novo Repeat Detection.

Jieming Shi, Chun Liang

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

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

13 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jieming ShiDepartment of Biology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056.
Chun LiangDepartment of Biology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056 liangc@miamioh.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1996-6027
Miami University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comprehensive and accurate annotation of the repeatome, including transposons, is critical for deepening our understanding of repeat origins, biogenesis, regulatory mechanisms, and roles. Here, we developed Generic Repeat Finder (GRF), a tool for genome-wide repeat detection based on fast, exhaustive numerical calculation algorithms integrated with optimized dynamic programming strategies. GRF sensitively identifies terminal inverted repeats (TIRs), terminal direct repeats (TDRs), and interspersed repeats that bear both inverted and direct repeats. GRF also detects DNA or RNA transposable elements characterized by these repeats in plant and animal genomes. For TIRs and TDRs, GRF identifies spacers in the middle and mismatches/insertions or deletions in terminal repeats, showing their alignment or base-pairing information. GRF helps improve the annotation for various DNA transposons and retrotransposons, such as miniature inverted-repeat transposable elements (MITEs), long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons, and non-LTR retrotransposons, including long interspersed nuclear elements and short interspersed nuclear elements in plants. We used GRF to perform TIR/TDR, interspersed-repeat, and MITE detection in several species, including Arabidopsis (

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyDNA Transposable ElementsGenome, PlantRetroelementsSoftwareTerminal Repeat SequencesDNA Transposable ElementsRetroelements

Identifiers

PMID31152127
PMCPMC6670090
OpenAlexW2947004807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.