Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11864365›Full record

ReviewGenome biology2002

The past, present and future of genome-wide re-annotation.

Christos A Ouzounis, Peter D Karp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome biology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
–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

60 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Detecting anomalous proteins using deep representations.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Reannotation of Yersinia pestis Strain 91001 Based on Omics Data.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2016
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Updating RNA-Seq analyses after re-annotation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2013
    Article
  20. Re-annotation of protein-coding genes in 10 complete genomes of Neisseriaceae family by combining similarity-based and composition-based methods.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2013
    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

2 authors.

Christos A OuzounisBioinformatics Research Group, AI Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA. pkarp@ai.sri.com
Peter D Karp

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Annotation, the process by which structural or functional information is inferred for genes or proteins, is crucial for obtaining value from genome sequences. We define the process of annotating a previously annotated genome sequence as 're-annotation', and examine the strengths and weaknesses of current manual and automatic genome-wide re-annotation approaches.

Indexed as

GenomeComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticDatabases, ProteinQuality Control

Identifiers

PMID11864365
PMCPMC139008

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.