Display options
Share it on

STAR Protoc. 2021 Mar 10;2(1):100383. doi: 10.1016/j.xpro.2021.100383. eCollection 2021 Mar 19.

Analysis workflow to assess .

STAR protocols

Nicholas S Diab, Spencer King, Weilai Dong, Garrett Allington, Amar Sheth, Samuel T Peters, Kristopher T Kahle, Sheng Chih Jin

Affiliations

  1. Department of Genetics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
  2. Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
  3. Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
  4. Laboratory of Human Genetics and Genomics, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA.
  5. Department of Neurosurgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
  6. Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
  7. Department of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.

PMID: 33748785 PMCID: PMC7960548 DOI: 10.1016/j.xpro.2021.100383

Abstract

Here, we present a protocol to analyze

© 2021 The Author(s).

Keywords: Bioinformatics; Genetics; Genomics; High-throughput screening; Sequence analysis; Sequencing

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. Nat Genet. 2014 Sep;46(9):944-50 - PubMed
  2. Nat Genet. 2017 Nov;49(11):1593-1601 - PubMed
  3. Nature. 2016 Aug 17;536(7616):285-91 - PubMed
  4. Bioinformatics. 2015 May 1;31(9):1375-81 - PubMed
  5. Nat Biotechnol. 2011 Jan;29(1):24-6 - PubMed
  6. Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Sep;81(3):559-75 - PubMed
  7. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2013;43:11.10.1-11.10.33 - PubMed
  8. Science. 2015 Dec 4;350(6265):1262-6 - PubMed
  9. Genome Res. 2010 Sep;20(9):1297-303 - PubMed
  10. Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2015 Oct 06;87:7.25.1-7.25.15 - PubMed
  11. Nat Genet. 2014 Mar;46(3):310-5 - PubMed
  12. Nature. 2015 Oct 1;526(7571):68-74 - PubMed
  13. iScience. 2020 Sep 11;23(10):101552 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support