Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34654362›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2021

Annotation depth confounds direct comparison of gene expression across species.

Elias Oziolor, Seda Arat, Matthew Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Elias OziolorComputational Toxicology, Global Pathology and Investigative Toxicology, Worldwide Research and Development, Pfizer Inc, New York, USA. oziolor@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4078-1054
Seda AratComputational Toxicology, Global Pathology and Investigative Toxicology, Worldwide Research and Development, Pfizer Inc, New York, USA.
Matthew MartinComputational Toxicology, Global Pathology and Investigative Toxicology, Worldwide Research and Development, Pfizer Inc, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparisons of the molecular framework among organisms can be done on both structural and functional levels. One of the most common top-down approaches for functional comparisons is RNA sequencing. This estimation of organismal transcriptional responses is of interest for understanding evolution of molecular activity, which is used for answering a diversity of questions ranging from basic biology to pre-clinical species selection and translation. However, direct comparison between species is often hindered by evolutionary divergence in structure of molecular framework, as well as large difference in the depth of our understanding of the genetic background between humans and other species. Here, we focus on the latter. We attempt to understand how differences in transcriptome annotation affect direct gene abundance comparisons between species.

resultsWe examine and suggest some straightforward approaches for direct comparison given the current available tools and using a sample dataset from human, cynomolgus monkey, dog, rat and mouse with a common quantitation and normalization approach. In addition, we examine how variation in genome annotation depth and quality across species may affect these direct comparisons.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that further efforts for better genome annotation or computational normalization tools may be of strong interest.

Indexed as

GenomeTranscriptomeAnimalsDogsMacaca fascicularisMiceMolecular Sequence AnnotationRatsSequence Analysis, RNAAnnotationCross-species comparisonsPre-clinical speciesRNAseqTPM

Identifiers

PMID34654362
PMCPMC8518172

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.