Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32543370›Full record

ArticleeLife2020

Stephan Kamrad, María Rodríguez-López, Cristina Cotobal, Clara Correia-Melo, Markus Ralser, Jürg Bähler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The power of many: when genetics met yeasts and high-throughput.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. mBio · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Parsley: a web app for parsing data from plate readers.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Article
  20. The fitness cost of spurious phosphorylation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    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

6 authors.

Stephan KamradUniversity College London, Institute of Healthy Ageing, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5957-4661
María Rodríguez-LópezUniversity College London, Institute of Healthy Ageing, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2066-0589
Cristina CotobalUniversity College London, Institute of Healthy Ageing, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5877-2228
Clara Correia-MeloThe Francis Crick Institute, Molecular Biology of Metabolism Laboratory, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6062-1472
Markus RalserThe Francis Crick Institute, Molecular Biology of Metabolism Laboratory, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9535-7413
Jürg BählerUniversity College London, Institute of Healthy Ageing, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4036-1532

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R009597/1Cancer Research UK FC001134Medical Research Council FC001134Wellcome Trust 095598/Z/11/ZWellcome Trust 200829/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust FC001134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial fitness screens are a key technique in functional genomics. We present an all-in-one solution,

Indexed as

Cell SurvivalGenetic FitnessPhenotypeColony Count, MicrobialGene DeletionSchizosaccharomycesSoftwarecell viabilityE. coligeneticsgenetic screengenomicshigh-throughput phenotypinginfectious diseasemicrobial fitnessmicrobiologyphenomicspython softwareS. cerevisiaeS. pombe

Identifiers

PMID32543370
PMCPMC7297533

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.