Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12529303›Full record

ArticleGenome research2003

Reevaluating human gene annotation: a second-generation analysis of chromosome 22.

John E Collins, Melanie E Goward, Charlotte G Cole, Luc J Smink, Elizabeth J Huckle, Sarah Knowles, Jacqueline M Bye, David M Beare, Ian Dunham

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. CREB binds to multiple loci on human chromosome 22.Molecular and cellular biology · 2004
    Article
  13. The otter annotation system.Genome research · 2004
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

John E CollinsThe Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK.
Melanie E Goward
Charlotte G Cole
Luc J Smink
Elizabeth J Huckle
Sarah Knowles
Jacqueline M Bye
David M Beare
Ian Dunham

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We report a second-generation gene annotation of human chromosome 22. Using expressed sequence databases, comparative sequence analysis, and experimental verification, we have extended genes, fused previously fragmented structures, and identified new genes. The total length in exons of annotation was increased by 74% over our previously published annotation and includes 546 protein-coding genes and 234 pseudogenes. Thirty-two potential protein-coding annotations are partial copies of other genes, and may represent duplications on an evolutionary path to change or loss of function. We also identified 31 non-protein-coding transcripts, including 16 possible antisense RNAs. By extrapolation, we estimate the human genome contains 29,000-36,000 protein-coding genes, 21,300 pseudogenes, and 1500 antisense RNAs. We suggest that our revised annotation criteria provide a paradigm for future annotation of the human genome.

Indexed as

AnimalsChromosome MappingChromosomes, Human, Pair 22GenesHumansMiceMolecular Sequence Data

Identifiers

PMID12529303
PMCPMC430954

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.