Cited by 1,529Genomics and Rare DiseasesGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

GeneMatcher: a matching tool for connecting investigators with an interest in the same gene.

Open access
Sobreira, Nara, Schiettecatte, François, Valle, David, Hamosh, Ada·2015·Human Mutation

Abstract

Here, we describe an overview and update on GeneMatcher (http://www.genematcher.org), a freely accessible Web-based tool developed as part of the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics. We created GeneMatcher with the goal of identifying additional individuals with rare phenotypes who had variants in the same candidate disease gene. We also wanted to facilitate connections to basic scientists working on orthologous genes in model systems with the goal of connecting their work to human Mendelian phenotypes. Meeting these goals will enhance the identification of novel Mendelian genes. Launched in September, 2013, GeneMatcher now has 2,178 candidate genes from 486 submitters spread across 38 countries entered in the database (June 1, 2015). GeneMatcher is also part of the Matchmaker Exchange (http://matchmakerexchange.org/) with an Application Programing Interface enabling submitters to query other databases of genetic variants and phenotypes without having to create accounts and data entries in multiple systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/humu.22844

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sobreira, N., Schiettecatte, F., Valle, D., & Hamosh, A.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • FS Consulting; Salem Massachusetts
Corresponding author
Sobreira, Nara
Venue
Human Mutation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-13
Volume
36
Issue
10
Pages
928-930
ISSN
1059-7794 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1808711893
Cited by
1,529
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 121 · 2025: 151 · 2024: 173 · 2023: 159 · 2022: 205 · 2021: 202 · 2020: 175 · 2019: 156 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
42.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Mutation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NHGRI (1U54HG006542)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
Mendelian genetics, rare phenotypes, candidate disease genes, orthologs, model organisms, online databases, gene discovery
MeSH terms
Humans, Phenotype, Software, User-Computer Interface, Genetic Variation, Computational Biology, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Databases, Genetic, Information Dissemination, Rare Diseases, Web Browser

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review