ArticleGenome research2003
Development and evaluation of an automated annotation pipeline and cDNA annotation system.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic Functional Annotation Workflow for Insects.Insects · 2022Article
- Review on the Computational Genome Annotation of Sequences Obtained by Next-Generation Sequencing.Biology · 2020Review
- Genome-wide identification, characterization, interaction network and expression profile ofPeerJ · 2019Article
- BEACON: automated tool for Bacterial GEnome Annotation ComparisON.BMC genomics · 2015Article
- A semi-automated genome annotation comparison and integration scheme.BMC bioinformatics · 2013Article
- SSHscreen and SSHdb, generic software for microarray based gene discovery: application to the stress response in cowpea.Plant methods · 2010Article
- Social tagging in the life sciences: characterizing a new metadata resource for bioinformatics.BMC bioinformatics · 2009Article
- Transcript annotation in FANTOM3: mouse gene catalog based on physical cDNAs.PLoS genetics · 2006Article
- EICO (Expression-based Imprint Candidate Organizer): finding disease-related imprinted genes.Nucleic acids research · 2004Article
- The Mouse Genome Database (MGD): integrating biology with the genome.Nucleic acids research · 2004Article
- Update on human genome completion and annotations: gene nomenclature.Human genomics · 2003Article
- The mouse secretome: functional classification of the proteins secreted into the extracellular environment.Genome research · 2003Article
- CDS annotation in full-length cDNA sequence.Genome research · 2003Article
- G protein-coupled receptor genes in the FANTOM2 database.Genome research · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Manual curation has long been held to be the "gold standard" for functional annotation of DNA sequence. Our experience with the annotation of more than 20,000 full-length cDNA sequences revealed problems with this approach, including inaccurate and inconsistent assignment of gene names, as well as many good assignments that were difficult to reproduce using only computational methods. For the FANTOM2 annotation of more than 60,000 cDNA clones, we developed a number of methods and tools to circumvent some of these problems, including an automated annotation pipeline that provides high-quality preliminary annotation for each sequence by introducing an "uninformative filter" that eliminates uninformative annotations, controlled vocabularies to accurately reflect both the functional assignments and the evidence supporting them, and a highly refined, Web-based manual annotation tool that allows users to view a wide array of sequence analyses and to assign gene names and putative functions using a consistent nomenclature. The ultimate utility of our approach is reflected in the low rate of reassignment of automated assignments by manual curation. Based on these results, we propose a new standard for large-scale annotation, in which the initial automated annotations are manually investigated and then computational methods are iteratively modified and improved based on the results of manual curation.
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.