ArticlePloS one2020
mmannot: How to improve small-RNA annotation?
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- sRNAflow: A Tool for the Analysis of Small RNA-Seq Data.Non-coding RNA · 2024Article
- MiR-590-5p inhibits pathological hypertrophy mediated heart failure by targeting RTN4.Journal of molecular histology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing makes it possible to provide the genome-wide distribution of small non coding RNAs in a single experiment, and contributed greatly to the identification and understanding of these RNAs in the last decade. Small non coding RNAs gather a wide collection of classes, such as microRNAs, tRNA-derived fragments, small nucleolar RNAs and small nuclear RNAs, to name a few. As usual in RNA-seq studies, the sequencing step is followed by a feature quantification step: when a genome is available, the reads are aligned to the genome, their genomic positions are compared to the already available annotations, and the corresponding features are quantified. However, problem arises when many reads map at several positions and while different strategies exist to circumvent this problem, all of them are biased. In this article, we present a new strategy that compares all the reads that map at several positions, and their annotations when available. In many cases, all the hits co-localize with the same feature annotation (a duplicated miRNA or a duplicated gene, for instance). When different annotations exist for a given read, we propose to merge existing features and provide the counts for the merged features. This new strategy has been implemented in a tool, mmannot, freely available at https://github.com/mzytnicki/mmannot.
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.