ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2022
Analysis of the landscape of human enhancer sequences in biological databases.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcriptional Reprogramming by AP-1-Bound Cis-Regulatory Elements Is Associated with Melanoma Development.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- A map of enhancer regions in primary human neural progenitor cells using capture STARR-seq.Genome research · 2025Article
- Annotation of biological samples data to standard ontologies with support from large language models.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Integration of chromosome locations and functional aspects of enhancers and topologically associating domains in knowledge graphs enables versatile queries about gene regulation.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- A single-cell multimodal view on gene regulatory network inference from transcriptomics and chromatin accessibility data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The process of gene regulation extends as a network in which both genetic sequences and proteins are involved. The levels of regulation and the mechanisms involved are multiple. Transcription is the main control mechanism for most genes, being the downstream steps responsible for refining the transcription patterns. In turn, gene transcription is mainly controlled by regulatory events that occur at promoters and enhancers. Several studies are focused on analyzing the contribution of enhancers in the development of diseases and their possible use as therapeutic targets. The study of regulatory elements has advanced rapidly in recent years with the development and use of next generation sequencing techniques. All this information has generated a large volume of information that has been transferred to a growing number of public repositories that store this information. In this article, we analyze the content of those public repositories that contain information about human enhancers with the aim of detecting whether the knowledge generated by scientific research is contained in those databases in a way that could be computationally exploited. The analysis will be based on three main aspects identified in the literature: types of enhancers, type of evidence about the enhancers, and methods for detecting enhancer-promoter interactions. Our results show that no single database facilitates the optimal exploitation of enhancer data, most types of enhancers are not represented in the databases and there is need for a standardized model for enhancers. We have identified major gaps and challenges for the computational exploitation of enhancer data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.