Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9224618›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research1997

A branch point consensus from Arabidopsis found by non-circular analysis allows for better prediction of acceptor sites.

N Tolstrup, P Rouzé, S Brunak

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A computational analysis of sequence features involved in recognition of short introns.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2001
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

N TolstrupCenter for Biological Sequence Analysis, Department of Chemistry, The Technical University of Denmark, Building 206, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark.
P Rouzé
S Brunak
Technical University of Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Little knowledge exists about branch points in plants; it has even been claimed that plant introns lack conserved branch point sequences similar to those found in vertebrate introns. A putative branch point consensus sequence for Arabidopsis thaliana resembling the well known metazoan consensus sequence has been proposed, but this is based on search of sequences similar to those in yeast and metazoa. Here we present a novel consensus sequence found by a non-circular approach. A hidden Markov model with a fixed A nucleotide was trained on sequences upstream of the acceptor site. The consensus found by the Markov model shares features with the metazoan consensus, but differs in its details from the consensus proposed earlier. Despite the fact that branch point consensus sequences in plants are weak, we show that a prediction scheme incorporating them leads to a substantial improvement in the recognition of true acceptor sites; the false positive rate being reduced by a factor of 2. We take this as an indication that the consensus found here is the genuine one and that the branch point does play a role in the proper recognition of the acceptor site in plants.

Indexed as

Consensus SequenceDNA, PlantArabidopsisBinding SitesModels, GeneticDNA, Plant

Identifiers

PMID9224618
PMCPMC146848
OpenAlexW1970943834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.