Cited by 3,362

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MutationTaster2: mutation prediction for the deep-sequencing age

Schwarz, Jana Marie, Cooper, David N, Schuelke, Markus, Seelow, Dominik·2014·Nature Methods

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.2890

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Functional prediction algorithms (8 of 10), including SIFT and PolyPhen, considered p.Gln55Arg benign and tolerated, with only Mutation taster and LRT scoring this change as deleterious.

    “Functional prediction algorithms (8 of 10), including SIFT33 and PolyPhen34, considered this change to be benign and tolerated, with only Mutation taster35 and LRT36 scoring this change as deleterious.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Landrum, M.J. et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D980–D985 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Stenson, P. D. et al. Hum. Genet. 133, 1–9 (2014). · DOI
  3. The ENCODE Project Consortium. Nature 489, 57–74 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Portales-Casamar, E. et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, D105–D110 (2010). · DOI
  5. Seelow, D., Schwarz, J.M. & Schuelke, M. PLoS ONE 3, e3874 (2008). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Schwarz, J. M., Cooper, D. N., Schuelke, M., & Seelow, D.
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2014-03-28
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
361-362
ISSN
  • 1548-7091
  • 1548-7105
Cited by
3,362
References
3
Language
en

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