Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14709175›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2003

An integrated gene annotation and transcriptional profiling approach towards the full gene content of the Drosophila genome.

M Hild, B Beckmann, S A Haas, B Koch, V Solovyev, C Busold, K Fellenberg, M Boutros, M Vingron, F Sauer and 2 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing 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

60 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Identification for Exploring Underlying Pathogenesis and Therapy Strategy of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma by Bioinformatics Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A genetic interaction map of cell cycle regulators.Molecular biology of the cell · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

12 authors.

M HildZentrum für Molekulare Biologie Heidelberg, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 282, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
B Beckmann
S A Haas
B Koch
V Solovyev
C Busold
K Fellenberg
M Boutros
M Vingron
F Sauer
J D Hoheisel
R Paro

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile the genome sequences for a variety of organisms are now available, the precise number of the genes encoded is still a matter of debate. For the human genome several stringent annotation approaches have resulted in the same number of potential genes, but a careful comparison revealed only limited overlap. This indicates that only the combination of different computational prediction methods and experimental evaluation of such in silico data will provide more complete genome annotations. In order to get a more complete gene content of the Drosophila melanogaster genome, we based our new D. melanogaster whole-transcriptome microarray, the Heidelberg FlyArray, on the combination of the Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project (BDGP) annotation and a novel ab initio gene prediction of lower stringency using the Fgenesh software.

resultsHere we provide evidence for the transcription of approximately 2,600 additional genes predicted by Fgenesh. Validation of the developmental profiling data by RT-PCR and in situ hybridization indicates a lower limit of 2,000 novel annotations, thus substantially raising the number of genes that make a fly.

conclusionsThe successful design and application of this novel Drosophila microarray on the basis of our integrated in silico/wet biology approach confirms our expectation that in silico approaches alone will always tend to be incomplete. The identification of at least 2,000 novel genes highlights the importance of gathering experimental evidence to discover all genes within a genome. Moreover, as such an approach is independent of homology criteria, it will allow the discovery of novel genes unrelated to known protein families or those that have not been strictly conserved between species.

Indexed as

GenomeAnimalsCluster AnalysisComputational BiologyDrosophila melanogasterGene Expression ProfilingGenes, InsectIn Situ HybridizationModels, GeneticMolecular Sequence DataOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPredictive Value of TestsPseudogenesReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA Interference

Identifiers

PMID14709175
PMCPMC395735

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.