Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31193391›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2019

Computational Methods for Mapping, Assembly and Quantification for Coding and Non-coding Transcripts.

Isaac A Babarinde, Yuhao Li, Andrew P Hutchins

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2019. 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
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Bioinformatics for Prohormone and Neuropeptide Discovery.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Noncoding RNAs in apoptosis: identification and function.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

3 authors.

Isaac A BabarindeDepartment of Biology, Southern University of Science and Technology, 1088 Xueyuan Lu, Shenzhen, China.
Yuhao LiDepartment of Biology, Southern University of Science and Technology, 1088 Xueyuan Lu, Shenzhen, China.
Andrew P HutchinsDepartment of Biology, Southern University of Science and Technology, 1088 Xueyuan Lu, Shenzhen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The measurement of gene expression has long provided significant insight into biological functions. The development of high-throughput short-read sequencing technology has revealed transcriptional complexity at an unprecedented scale, and informed almost all areas of biology. However, as researchers have sought to gather more insights from the data, these new technologies have also increased the computational analysis burden. In this review, we describe typical computational pipelines for RNA-Seq analysis and discuss their strengths and weaknesses for the assembly, quantification and analysis of coding and non-coding RNAs. We also discuss the assembly of transposable elements into transcripts, and the difficulty these repetitive elements pose. In summary, RNA-Seq is a powerful technology that is likely to remain a key asset in the biologist's toolkit.

Indexed as

GenomeLong non-coding RNARNA-SeqTranscriptTransposable element

Identifiers

PMID31193391
PMCPMC6526290

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.