Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12819153›Full record

ArticleGenome research2003

Development and evaluation of an automated annotation pipeline and cDNA annotation system.

Takeya Kasukawa, Masaaki Furuno, Itoshi Nikaido, Hidemasa Bono, David A Hume, Carol Bult, David P Hill, Richard Baldarelli, Julian Gough, Alexander Kanapin and 5 more

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation 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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

15 authors.

Takeya KasukawaLaboratory for Genome Exploration Research Group, RIKEN Genomic Sciences Center (GSC), RIKEN Yokohama Institute, Suehiro-cho, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 230-0045, Japan.
Masaaki Furuno
Itoshi Nikaido
Hidemasa Bono
David A Hume
Carol Bult
David P Hill
Richard Baldarelli
Julian Gough
Alexander Kanapin
Hideo Matsuda
Lynn M Schriml
Yoshihide Hayashizaki
Yasushi Okazaki
John Quackenbush

Funding

SOFTWARE AND DATABASE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENTP41HG000330 · NHGRI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI EPPIG, JANAN T. · 1995 to 2010
$72.1M
Resource ProjectU41HG002273 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI THOMAS, PAUL D. · 2012 to 2021
$34.7M
Gene Ontology ConsortiumP41HG002273 · NHGRI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI BLAKE, JUDITH A · 2004 to 2011
$27.4M
GENE EXPRESSION DATABASE FOR MOUSE DEVELOPMENTR01HD033745 · NICHD · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI RINGWALD, MARTIN · 1996 to 2010
$10.9M
GENE ONTOLOGY CONSORTIUMR01HG002273 · NHGRI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI BLAKE, JUDITH A · 2001 to 2003
$5.8M
MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS AND DISPLAY OF MOUSE GENOME DATAP01HG000330 · NHGRI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI EPPIG, JANAN T. · 1990 to 1994
–
NHGRI NIH HHS HG-002273NHGRI NIH HHS HG-00330NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG000330NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG002273NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002273NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG002273NICHD NIH HHS HD-33745NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD033745
6 · The paper itself

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

Software DesignAnimalsComputational BiologyContig MappingDatabases, GeneticDNA, ComplementaryElectronic Data ProcessingGenesHumansInformation ManagementMiceQuality ControlReference StandardsUser-Computer InterfaceDNA, Complementary

Identifiers

PMID12819153
PMCPMC403710

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.