Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38400045›Full record

ArticleViruses2024

Robust Approaches to the Quantitative Analysis of Genome Formula Variation in Multipartite and Segmented Viruses.

Marcelle L Johnson, Mark P Zwart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Marcelle L JohnsonDepartment of Microbial Ecology, The Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), P.O. Box 50, 6700 AB Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5599-4813
Mark P ZwartDepartment of Microbial Ecology, The Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), P.O. Box 50, 6700 AB Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4361-7636

Funding

Dutch Research Council 016.Vidi.171.061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When viruses have segmented genomes, the set of frequencies describing the abundance of segments is called the genome formula. The genome formula is often unbalanced and highly variable for both segmented and multipartite viruses. A growing number of studies are quantifying the genome formula to measure its effects on infection and to consider its ecological and evolutionary implications. Different approaches have been reported for analyzing genome formula data, including qualitative description, applying standard statistical tests such as ANOVA, and customized analyses. However, these approaches have different shortcomings, and test assumptions are often unmet, potentially leading to erroneous conclusions. Here, we address these challenges, leading to a threefold contribution. First, we propose a simple metric for analyzing genome formula variation: the genome formula distance. We describe the properties of this metric and provide a framework for understanding metric values. Second, we explain how this metric can be applied for different purposes, including testing for genome-formula differences and comparing observations to a reference genome formula value. Third, we re-analyze published data to illustrate the applications and weigh the evidence for previous conclusions. Our re-analysis of published datasets confirms many previous results but also provides evidence that the genome formula can be carried over from the inoculum to the virus population in a host. The simple procedures we propose contribute to the robust and accessible analysis of genome-formula data.

Indexed as

VirusesBiological EvolutionGenome, Viralgenome formulamultipartite virusplant virusRT-PCRsegmented virussequencingstatistical analysisvirus ecologyvirus evolution

Identifiers

PMID38400045
PMCPMC10892338

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.