SynthesisGenome biology and evolution2023
The Effect of Methodological Considerations on the Construction of Gene-Based Plant Pan-genomes.
Synthesis in Genome biology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- European ash pangenome reveals widespread structural variation and genetic basis of low ash dieback susceptibility.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Current and future pangenomic research in cucurbit crops.Breeding science · 2025Article
- A stepwise guide for pangenome development in crop plants: an alfalfa (Medicago sativa) case study.BMC genomics · 2024Review
- Beyond the Human Genome Project: The Age of Complete Human Genome Sequences and Pangenome References.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2024Review
- A Brassica carinata pan-genome platform for Brassica crop improvement.Plant communications · 2024Article
- Exploring Pan-Genomes: An Overview of Resources and Tools for Unraveling Structure, Function, and Evolution of Crop Genes and Genomes.Biomolecules · 2023Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Pan-genomics is an emerging approach for studying the genetic diversity within plant populations. In contrast to common resequencing studies that compare whole genome sequencing data with a single reference genome, the construction of a pan-genome (PG) involves the direct comparison of multiple genomes to one another, thereby enabling the detection of genomic sequences and genes not present in the reference, as well as the analysis of gene content diversity. Although multiple studies describing PGs of various plant species have been published in recent years, a better understanding regarding the effect of the computational procedures used for PG construction could guide researchers in making more informed methodological decisions. Here, we examine the effect of several key methodological factors on the obtained gene pool and on gene presence-absence detections by constructing and comparing multiple PGs of Arabidopsis thaliana and cultivated soybean, as well as conducting a meta-analysis on published PGs. These factors include the construction method, the sequencing depth, and the extent of input data used for gene annotation. We observe substantial differences between PGs constructed using three common procedures (de novo assembly and annotation, map-to-pan, and iterative assembly) and that results are dependent on the extent of the input data. Specifically, we report low agreement between the gene content inferred using different procedures and input data. Our results should increase the awareness of the community to the consequences of methodological decisions made during the process of PG construction and emphasize the need for further investigation of commonly applied methodologies.
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.