ArticleGenome research2003
Human-mouse gene identification by comparative evidence integration and evolutionary analysis.
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 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- GeneWaltz--A new method for reducing the false positives of gene finding.BioData mining · 2010Article
- Performance and scalability of discriminative metrics for comparative gene identification in 12 Drosophila genomes.PLoS computational biology · 2008Article
- Prediction of small, noncoding RNAs in bacteria using heterogeneous data.Journal of mathematical biology · 2008Article
- Discovery of functional elements in 12 Drosophila genomes using evolutionary signatures.Nature · 2007Article
- Genomix: a method for combining gene-finders' predictions, which uses evolutionary conservation of sequence and intron-exon structure.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2007Article
- Using several pair-wise informant sequences for de novo prediction of alternatively spliced transcripts.Genome biology · 2006Article
- Subtree power analysis and species selection for comparative genomics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2005Article
- Gene finding in the chicken genome.BMC bioinformatics · 2005Article
- An empirical analysis of training protocols for probabilistic gene finders.BMC bioinformatics · 2004Article
- The truth about mouse, human, worms and yeast.Human genomics · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identification of genes in the human genome remains a challenge, as the actual predictions appear to disagree tremendously and vary dramatically on the basis of the specific gene-finding methodology used. Because the pattern of conservation in coding regions is expected to be different from intronic or intergenic regions, a comparative computational analysis can lead, in principle, to an improved computational identification of genes in the human genome by using a reference, such as mouse genome. However, this comparative methodology critically depends on three important factors: (1) the selection of the most appropriate reference genome. In particular, it is not clear whether the mouse is at the correct evolutionary distance from the human to provide sufficiently distinctive conservation levels in different genomic regions, (2) the selection of comparative features that provide the most benefit to gene recognition, and (3) the selection of evidence integration architecture that effectively interprets the comparative features. We address the first question by a novel evolutionary analysis that allows us to explicitly correlate the performance of the gene recognition system with the evolutionary distance (time) between the two genomes. Our simulation results indicate that there is a wide range of reference genomes at different evolutionary time points that appear to deliver reasonable comparative prediction of human genes. In particular, the evolutionary time between human and mouse generally falls in the region of good performance; however, better accuracy might be achieved with a reference genome further than mouse. To address the second question, we propose several natural comparative measures of conservation for identifying exons and exon boundaries. Finally, we experiment with Bayesian networks for the integration of comparative and compositional evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.