ArticleGigaScience2020
*-DCC: A platform to collect, annotate, and explore a large variety of sequencing experiments.
Article in GigaScience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 5PSeq Explorer: interactive analysis of co-translational mRNA decay and ribosome dynamics.RNA biology · 2026Article
- Multiple cis-regulatory elements collaborate to control mdka expression in telencephalic neural stem cells of adult zebrafish during constitutive and regenerative neurogenesis.The FEBS journal · 2026Article
- FAIR data station for lightweight metadata management and validation of omics studies.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Multiomic atlas with functional stratification and developmental dynamics of zebrafish cis-regulatory elements.Nature genetics · 2022Article
- Zebrafish transposable elements show extensive diversification in age, genomic distribution, and developmental expression.Genome research · 2022Article
- Ten simple rules for annotating sequencing experiments.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- *-DCC: A platform to collect, annotate, and explore a large variety of sequencing experiments.GigaScience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past few years the variety of experimental designs and protocols for sequencing experiments increased greatly. To ensure the wide usability of the produced data beyond an individual project, rich and systematic annotation of the underlying experiments is crucial.
findingsWe first developed an annotation structure that captures the overall experimental design as well as the relevant details of the steps from the biological sample to the library preparation, the sequencing procedure, and the sequencing and processed files. Through various design features, such as controlled vocabularies and different field requirements, we ensured a high annotation quality, comparability, and ease of annotation. The structure can be easily adapted to a large variety of species. We then implemented the annotation strategy in a user-hosted web platform with data import, query, and export functionality.
conclusionsWe present here an annotation structure and user-hosted platform for sequencing experiment data, suitable for lab-internal documentation, collaborations, and large-scale annotation efforts.
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.