Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31366898›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Daphnia stressor database: Taking advantage of a decade of Daphnia '-omics' data for gene annotation.

Suda Parimala Ravindran, Jennifer Lüneburg, Lisa Gottschlich, Verena Tams, Mathilde Cordellier

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Suda Parimala RavindranDepartment of Marine Sciences, Tjärnö Marine Laboratory, University of Gothenburg, 452 96, Strömstad, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6745-4977
Jennifer LüneburgUniversität Hamburg, Institute of Zoology, Martin-Luther-King Platz 3, 20146, Hamburg, Germany.
Lisa GottschlichUniversität Hamburg, Institute of Zoology, Martin-Luther-King Platz 3, 20146, Hamburg, Germany.
Verena TamsUniversität Hamburg, Institut für marine Ökosystem- und Fischereiwissenschaften, Große Elbstraße 133, 22767, Hamburg, Germany.
Mathilde CordellierUniversität Hamburg, Institute of Zoology, Martin-Luther-King Platz 3, 20146, Hamburg, Germany. mathilde.cordellier@uni-hamburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7376-4560

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene expression patterns help to measure and characterize the effect of environmental perturbations at the cellular and organism-level. Complicating interpretation is the presence of uncharacterized or "hypothetical" gene functions for a large percentage of genomes. This is particularly evident in Daphnia genomes, which contains many regions coding for "hypothetical proteins" and are significantly divergent from many of the available arthropod model species, but might be ecologically important. In the present study, we developed a gene expression database, the Daphnia stressor database (http://www.daphnia-stressordb.uni-hamburg.de/dsdbstart.php), built from 90 published studies on Daphnia gene expression. Using a comparative genomics approach, we used the database to annotate D. galeata transcripts. The extensive body of literature available for Daphnia species allowed to associate stressors with gene expression patterns. We believe that our stressor based annotation strategy allows for better understanding and interpretation of the functional role of the understudied hypothetical or uncharacterized Daphnia genes, thereby increasing our understanding of Daphnia's genetic and phenotypic variability.

Identifiers

PMID31366898
PMCPMC6668405

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.