Difference between revisions of "Abstracts"
From WormBaseWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchLine 34: | Line 34: | ||
! | ! | ||
! | ! | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! 00032506 | ||
+ | ! unc-5, unc-6, unc-40, unc-129 | ||
+ | ! | ||
+ | ! | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 11:37, 5 January 2010
Currently, genes or proteins mentioned in the abstracts get associated with papers. (This was not always the case.)
Are abstracts enough? Here's the data:
WBPaper ID | Genes associated via abstract | Genes associated via curator (done or in theory) | Percentage overlap |
---|---|---|---|
00032891 | cnc-2, dbl-1 | cnc-1, cnc-2, cnc-3, cnc-4, cnc-5, daf-3, daf-4, dbl-1, lon-2, mpk-1, pmk-1, sma-2, sma-3, sma-4, sma-6, sma-9, tir-1, tol-1, cnc-11 | 10.5% |
00032488 | none | 50+ (mostly in two different Figures, only ~15-20% mentioned in the text) | 0% |
00032489 | ain-1, ain-2, let-7, lin-4 | cog-1, daf-12, hbl-1, let-7, lin-4, lin-14, lin-28, lin-41, ain-2, ain-1 | 40% |
00032508 | none | maybe myo-2 as a marker for their assay | 0% |
00032509 | lgg-1, sepa-1 | ||
00032506 | unc-5, unc-6, unc-40, unc-129 |
Back to Associating genes with papers
Back to Paper Pipeline