Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9649626›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research1998

Automated detection of point mutations using fluorescent sequence trace subtraction.

J K Bonfield, C Rada, R Staden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

J K BonfieldMRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QH, UK.
C Rada
R Staden

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The final step in the detection of mutations is to determine the sequence of the suspected mutant and to compare it with that of the wild-type, and for this fluorescence-based sequencing instruments are widely used. We describe some simple algorithms forcomparing sequence traces which, as part of our sequence assembly and analysis package, are proving useful for the discovery of mutations and which may also help to identify misplaced readings in sequence assembly projects. The mutations can be detected automatically by a new program called TRACE_DIFF and new types of trace display in our program GAP4 greatly simplify visual checking of the assigned changes. To assess the accuracy of the automatic mutation detection algorithm we analysed 214 sequence readings from hypermutating DNA comprising a total of 108 497 bases. After the readings were assembled there were 1232 base differences, including 392 Ns and 166 alignment characters. Visual inspection of the traces established that of the 1232 differences, 353 were real mutations while the rest were due to base calling errors. The TRACE_DIFF algorithm automatically identified all but 36, with 28 false positives. Further information about the software can be obtained from http://www.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/pubseq/

Indexed as

Point MutationSubtraction TechniqueAlgorithmsAutomationBase SequenceDNAFluorescenceMolecular Sequence DataDNA

Identifiers

PMID9649626
PMCPMC147706

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.