Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11879526›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2002

Re-annotation of genome microbial coding-sequences: finding new genes and inaccurately annotated genes.

Stéphanie Bocs, Antoine Danchin, Claudine Médigue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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. Article
  5. An integrative method for identifying the over-annotated protein-coding genes in microbial genomes.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2011
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. AMIGene: Annotation of MIcrobial Genes.Nucleic acids research · 2003
    Article
  14. Article
  15. The secE gene of Helicobacter pylori.Journal of bacteriology · 2002
    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

3 authors.

Stéphanie BocsLaboratoire Génome et Informatique, Université de Versailles, 91034 Evry Cedex, France. scbocs@infobiogen.fr
Antoine Danchin
Claudine Médigue

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnalysis of any newly sequenced bacterial genome starts with the identification of protein-coding genes. Despite the accumulation of multiple complete genome sequences, which provide useful comparisons with close relatives among other organisms during the annotation process, accurate gene prediction remains quite difficult. A major reason for this situation is that genes are tightly packed in prokaryotes, resulting in frequent overlap. Thus, detection of translation initiation sites and/or selection of the correct coding regions remain difficult unless appropriate biological knowledge (about the structure of a gene) is imbedded in the approach.

resultsWe have developed a new program that automatically identifies biologically significant candidate genes in a bacterial genome. Twenty-six complete prokaryotic genomes were analyzed using this tool, and the accuracy of gene finding was assessed by comparison with existing annotations. This analysis revealed that, despite the enormous effort of genome program annotators, a small but not negligible number of genes annotated within the framework of sequencing projects are likely to be partially inaccurate or plainly wrong. Moreover, the analysis of several putative new genes shows that, as expected, many short genes have escaped annotation. In most cases, these new genes revealed frameshifts that could be either artifacts or genuine frameshifts. Some entirely unexpected new genes have also been identified. This allowed us to get a more complete picture of prokaryotic genomes. The results of this procedure are progressively integrated into the SWISS-PROT reference databank.

conclusionsThe results described in the present study show that our procedure is very satisfactory in terms of gene finding accuracy. Except in few cases, discrepancies between our results and annotations provided by individual authors can be accounted for by the nature of each annotation process or by specific characteristics of some genomes. This stresses that close cooperation between scientists, regular update and curation of the findings in databases are clearly required to reduce the level of errors in genome annotation (and hence in reducing the unfortunate spreading of errors through centralized data libraries).

Indexed as

Genes, BacterialGenome, ArchaealGenome, BacterialOpen Reading FramesSoftwareComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinGenes, ArchaealGenetic VariationGene Transfer, HorizontalGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive BacteriaPredictive Value of TestsReading FramesSpirochaetaceae

Identifiers

PMID11879526
PMCPMC77393

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.