ArticleNucleic acids research2005
MICheck: a web tool for fast checking of syntactic annotations of bacterial genomes.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- MicroScope-an integrated resource for community expertise of gene functions and comparative analysis of microbial genomic and metabolic data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2019Article
- GAMOLA2, a Comprehensive Software Package for the Annotation and Curation of Draft and Complete Microbial Genomes.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
- The Caulobacter crescentus transducing phage Cr30 is a unique member of the T4-like family of myophages.Current microbiology · 2015Article
- Genome sequence and phenotypic characterization of Caulobacter segnis.Current microbiology · 2015Article
- Article
- Integration of bioinformatics to biodegradation.Biological procedures online · 2014Review
- The automatic annotation of bacterial genomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2013Article
- MicroScope--an integrated microbial resource for the curation and comparative analysis of genomic and metabolic data.Nucleic acids research · 2013Article
- Core and panmetabolism in Escherichia coli.Journal of bacteriology · 2011Article
- MicroScope: a platform for microbial genome annotation and comparative genomics.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2009Article
- Organised genome dynamics in the Escherichia coli species results in highly diverse adaptive paths.PLoS genetics · 2009Article
- Comparative genomics-based investigation of resequencing targets in Vibrio fischeri: focus on point miscalls and artefactual expansions.BMC genomics · 2008Article
- Detecting the molecular scars of evolution in the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex by analyzing interrupted coding sequences.BMC evolutionary biology · 2008Article
- Comparative and functional genomic analyses of iron transport and regulation in Leptospira spp.Journal of bacteriology · 2006Article
- MaGe: a microbial genome annotation system supported by synteny results.Nucleic acids research · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The annotation of newly sequenced bacterial genomes begins with running several automatic analysis methods, with major emphasis on the identification of protein-coding genes. DNA sequences are heterogeneous in local nucleotide composition and this leads sometimes to sequences being annotated as authentic genes when they are not protein-coding genes or are true but uncharacterized protein-coding genes. This first annotation step is generally followed by an expert manual annotation of the predicted genes. The genomic data (sequence and annotations) organized in an appropriate databank file format is subsequently submitted to an entry point of the International Nucleotide Sequence Database. These procedures are inevitably subject to mistakes, and this can lead to unintentional syntactic annotation errors being stored in public databanks. Here, we present a new web program, MICheck (MIcrobial genome Checker), that enables rapid verification of sets of annotated genes and frameshifts in previously published bacterial genomes. The web interface allows one easily to investigate the MICheck results, i.e. inaccurate or missed gene annotations: a graphical representation is drawn, in which the genomic context of a unique coding DNA sequence annotation or a predicted frameshift is given, using information on the coding potential (curves) and annotation of the neighbouring genes. We illustrate some capabilities of the MICheck site through the analysis of 20 bacterial genomes, 9 of which were selected for their 'Reviewed' status in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Reference Sequence Project (RefSeq). In the context of the numerous re-annotation projects for microbial genomes, this tool can be seen as a preliminary step before the functional re-annotation step to check quickly for missing or wrongly annotated genes. The MICheck website is accessible at the following address: http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/agc/tools/micheck.
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.