Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34297055›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2021

Ranked choice voting for representative transcripts with TRaCE.

Andrew J Olson, Doreen Ware

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Genome sequence assembly and annotation ofNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors.

Andrew J OlsonPlant Biology, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11768, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4946-9021
Doreen WarePlant Biology, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11768, USA.

Funding

U.S. Department of Agriculture 1907-21000-030-00D
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

summaryGenome sequencing projects annotate protein-coding gene models with multiple transcripts, aiming to represent all of the available transcript evidence. However, downstream analyses often operate on only one representative transcript per gene locus, sometimes known as the canonical transcript. To choose canonical transcripts, Transcript Ranking and Canonical Election (TRaCE) holds an 'election' in which a set of RNA-seq samples rank transcripts by annotation edit distance. These sample-specific votes are tallied along with other criteria such as protein length and InterPro domain coverage. The winner is selected as the canonical transcript, but the election proceeds through multiple rounds of voting to order all the transcripts by relevance. Based on the set of expression data provided, TRaCE can identify the most common isoforms from a broad expression atlas or prioritize alternative transcripts expressed in specific contexts. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Transcript ranking code can be found on GitHub at {{https://github.com/warelab/TRaCE}}. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

PoliticsProtein IsoformsRNA-SeqProtein Isoforms

Identifiers

PMID34297055
PMCPMC8696091

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.