Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12537570›Full record

ReviewGenome biology2002

An integrated computational pipeline and database to support whole-genome sequence annotation.

C J Mungall, S Misra, B P Berman, J Carlson, E Frise, N Harris, B Marshall, S Shu, J S Kaminker, S E Prochnik and 6 more

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 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Duplication count distributions in DNA sequences.Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics · 2008
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Identification of putative noncoding polyadenylated transcripts in Drosophila melanogaster.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2005
    Article
  17. A computational and experimental approach to validating annotations and gene predictions in the Drosophila melanogaster genome.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2005
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The otter annotation system.Genome research · 2004
    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

16 authors.

C J MungallHoward Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. cjm@fruitfly.org
S Misra
B P Berman
J Carlson
E Frise
N Harris
B Marshall
S Shu
J S Kaminker
S E Prochnik
C D Smith
E Smith
J L Tupy
C Wiel
G M Rubin
S E Lewis

Funding

FLYBASE: A DROSOPHILA RELATIONAL DATABASEP41HG000739 · NHGRI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI GELBART, WILLIAM MARTIN · 1992 to 2014
$56.6M
Resource Project CoreU41HG000739 · NHGRI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI PERRIMON, NORBERT · 2014 to 2022
$32.3M
TECHNICAL COREP50HG000750 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI RUBIN, GERALD M. · 1992 to 2002
$25.5M
NHGRI NIH HHS HG00739NHGRI NIH HHS HG00750NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG000739NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG000739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We describe here our experience in annotating the Drosophila melanogaster genome sequence, in the course of which we developed several new open-source software tools and a database schema to support large-scale genome annotation. We have developed these into an integrated and reusable software system for whole-genome annotation. The key contributions to overall annotation quality are the marshalling of high-quality sequences for alignments and the design of a system with an adaptable and expandable flexible architecture.

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticGenomeSoftware DesignAnimalsComputational BiologyHumansInternet

Identifiers

PMID12537570
PMCPMC151183

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.