ArticleScientific reports2019
ePath: an online database towards comprehensive essential gene annotation for prokaryotes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning enables prediction of metabolic system evolution in bacteria.Science advances · 2023Pooled it
- Recent advances in the characterization of essential genes and development of a database of essential genes.iMeta · 2024Review
- Bacterial genome reductions: Tools, applications, and challenges.Frontiers in genome editing · 2022Review
- Evaluation of machine learning classifiers for predicting essential genes inBioinformation · 2022Article
- Genome-wide identification of Streptococcus sanguinis fitness genes in human serum and discovery of potential selective drug targets.Molecular microbiology · 2021Article
- Environmental flexibility does not explain metabolic robustness.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2020Article
- Ranking essential bacterial processes by speed of mutant death.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- High-Throughput Screen for Cell Wall Synthesis Network Module inFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Experimental techniques for identification of essential genes (EGs) in prokaryotes are usually expensive, time-consuming and sometimes unrealistic. Emerging in silico methods provide alternative methods for EG prediction, but often possess limitations including heavy computational requirements and lack of biological explanation. Here we propose a new computational algorithm for EG prediction in prokaryotes with an online database (ePath) for quick access to the EG prediction results of over 4,000 prokaryotes ( https://www.pubapps.vcu.edu/epath/ ). In ePath, gene essentiality is linked to biological functions annotated by KEGG Ortholog (KO). Two new scoring systems, namely, E_score and P_score, are proposed for each KO as the EG evaluation criteria. E_score represents appearance and essentiality of a given KO in existing experimental results of gene essentiality, while P_score denotes gene essentiality based on the principle that a gene is essential if it plays a role in genetic information processing, cell envelope maintenance or energy production. The new EG prediction algorithm shows prediction accuracy ranging from 75% to 91% based on validation from five new experimental studies on EG identification. Our overall goal with ePath is to provide a comprehensive and reliable reference for gene essentiality annotation, facilitating the study of those prokaryotes without experimentally derived gene essentiality information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.