Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34648491›Full record

ReviewPLoS computational biology2021

Segmentation and genome annotation algorithms for identifying chromatin state and other genomic patterns.

Maxwell W Libbrecht, Rachel C W Chan, Michael M Hoffman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Segzoo: a turnkey system that summarizes genome annotations.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Robust chromatin state annotation.Genome research · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Maxwell W LibbrechtSchool of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2502-0262
Rachel C W ChanDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1009-6379
Michael M HoffmanDepartment of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4517-1562

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Segmentation and genome annotation (SAGA) algorithms are widely used to understand genome activity and gene regulation. These algorithms take as input epigenomic datasets, such as chromatin immunoprecipitation-sequencing (ChIP-seq) measurements of histone modifications or transcription factor binding. They partition the genome and assign a label to each segment such that positions with the same label exhibit similar patterns of input data. SAGA algorithms discover categories of activity such as promoters, enhancers, or parts of genes without prior knowledge of known genomic elements. In this sense, they generally act in an unsupervised fashion like clustering algorithms, but with the additional simultaneous function of segmenting the genome. Here, we review the common methodological framework that underlies these methods, review variants of and improvements upon this basic framework, and discuss the outlook for future work. This review is intended for those interested in applying SAGA methods and for computational researchers interested in improving upon them.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsChromatinChromatin Immunoprecipitation SequencingGenomeGenomicsHistone CodeHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationProtein BindingChromatin

Identifiers

PMID34648491
PMCPMC8516206

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.