Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39552065›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2024

A gentle introduction to pangenomics.

Chelsea A Matthews, Nathan S Watson-Haigh, Rachel A Burton, Anna E Sheppard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Pangenome-GWAS analysis ofCanadian journal of microbiology · 2026
    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

4 authors.

Chelsea A MatthewsSchool of Agriculture, Food and Wine, Waite Campus, University of Adelaide, Urrbrae, South Australia 5064, Australia.
Nathan S Watson-HaighAustralian Genome Research Facility, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia.
Rachel A BurtonSchool of Agriculture, Food and Wine, Waite Campus, University of Adelaide, Urrbrae, South Australia 5064, Australia.
Anna E SheppardSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2913-0920

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pangenomes have emerged in response to limitations associated with traditional linear reference genomes. In contrast to a traditional reference that is (usually) assembled from a single individual, pangenomes aim to represent all of the genomic variation found in a group of organisms. The term 'pangenome' is currently used to describe multiple different types of genomic information, and limited language is available to differentiate between them. This is frustrating for researchers working in the field and confusing for researchers new to the field. Here, we provide an introduction to pangenomics relevant to both prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms and propose a formalization of the language used to describe pangenomes (see the Glossary) to improve the specificity of discussion in the field.

Indexed as

GenomicsGenomeHumansgenomic variationpangenomepresence–absence variation (PAV)reference bias

Identifiers

PMID39552065
PMCPMC11570541

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.