Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15980515›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2005

MICheck: a web tool for fast checking of syntactic annotations of bacterial genomes.

Stéphane Cruveiller, Jérôme Le Saux, David Vallenet, Aurélie Lajus, Stéphanie Bocs, Claudine Médigue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Integration of bioinformatics to biodegradation.Biological procedures online · 2014
    Review
  7. The automatic annotation of bacterial genomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2013
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Core and panmetabolism in Escherichia coli.Journal of bacteriology · 2011
    Article
  10. MicroScope: a platform for microbial genome annotation and comparative genomics.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2009
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Stéphane CruveillerGenoscope/UMR-CNRS 8030, Atelier de Génomique Comparative, 2 rue Gaston Crémieux, F-91006 Evry, France.
Jérôme Le Saux
David Vallenet
Aurélie Lajus
Stéphanie Bocs
Claudine Médigue

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Genes, BacterialGenome, BacterialSoftwareComputer GraphicsDatabases, Nucleic AcidGenomicsInternetReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID15980515
PMCPMC1160258

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.