Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33194378›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

A model of

Sam Humphrey, Alastair Kerr, Magnus Rattray, Caroline Dive, Crispin J Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Sam HumphreyCRUK Manchester Institute Cancer Biomarker Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Alastair KerrCRUK Manchester Institute Cancer Biomarker Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Magnus RattrayDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Caroline DiveCRUK Manchester Institute Cancer Biomarker Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Crispin J MillerComputational Biology Group, CRUK Beatson Institute, Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15675Cancer Research UK 29420Cancer Research UK 29569
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular sequences carry information. Analysis of sequence conservation between homologous loci is a proven approach with which to explore the information content of molecular sequences. This is often done using multiple sequence alignments to support comparisons between homologous loci. These methods therefore rely on sufficient underlying sequence similarity with which to construct a representative alignment. Here we describe a method using a formal metric of information, surprisal, to analyse biological sub-sequences without alignment constraints. We applied our model to the genomes of five different species to reveal similar patterns across a panel of eukaryotes. As the surprisal of a sub-sequence is inversely proportional to its occurrence within the genome, the optimal size of the sub-sequences was selected for each species under consideration. With the model optimized, we found a strong correlation between surprisal and CG dinucleotide usage. The utility of our model was tested by examining the sequences of genes known to undergo splicing. We demonstrate that our model can identify biological features of interest such as known donor and acceptor sites. Analysis across all annotated coding exon junctions in

Indexed as

EntropyInformation theorySplicingSurprisal

Identifiers

PMID33194378
PMCPMC7648452

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.